Witness in a Position of Trust Can Testify in Labor Lawsuit

This page is a translation of the original Portuguese text, provided for convenience. It deals with Brazilian law. If there is any discrepancy, the Portuguese version prevails. Read the original in Portuguese

Brazil’s higher labor court has ruled that witnesses in positions of trust are not automatically disqualified for bias in a lawsuit brought by a pharmaceutical sales representative, reaffirming a binding thesis on the issue.

What the court decided on the appeal

The panel hearing the case unanimously overturned a lower-court decision that had declared biased the witnesses a pharmaceutical laboratory offered in a labor claim. The panel took the following position. The mere fact that a witness holds a position of trust at the company does not, by itself, bar that person from testifying in court. This puts an end to the automatic disqualifications that regional courts had been applying.

The dispute reached the higher labor court through a recurso de revista (an appeal on points of law), after the regional court accepted the witnesses only as informants, a category whose statements carry reduced weight as evidence. In the regional court’s view, holding a position of trust was incompatible with the impartiality required of any witness, especially when the person testifying also serves as the employer’s designated representative (preposto) at hearings.

Under the new decision, the case returns to the original labor court in Erechim, Rio Grande do Sul, so that the judgment can proceed with the previously rejected testimony taken into account. The change of course alters the evidence in a dispute over overtime and bonus differences claimed by a sales representative from the interior of Rio Grande do Sul.

The sales representative’s case

The lawsuit was filed by a sales representative who promoted medications in the interior of Rio Grande do Sul. Among other claims, he sought recognition of unpaid overtime and differences in bonus awards under the company’s goals program, arguing that his actual working hours exceeded the formal records.

During the evidentiary hearing, the worker challenged the validity of the testimony of the witnesses the employer had offered. One of them was a team coordinator who also regularly served as the laboratory’s preposto at labor hearings. According to the worker’s lawyers, holding both roles compromised the impartiality needed to testify.

The mere fact that a witness holds a position of trust at the company does not, by itself, bar that person from testifying in court.

The trial judge rejected the request to disqualify the witnesses, but the appellate court saw it differently. The regional court concluded that the preposto, as the company’s legal representative, lacked sufficient impartiality to testify as an ordinary witness, and that this was reason enough to order the company to pay the overtime claimed. That reasoning was the focus of the appeal, in which the laboratory argued that it had been denied its right to defend itself. People involved in labor disputes often seek specialized guidance in labor law to assess how this kind of evidence can affect the final outcome of a case.

Binding thesis and the right to defend yourself

The lead opinion noted that the issue had already been settled in a ruling on repetitive appeals. Under the thesis established there, holding a position of trust does not, by itself, create a presumption of bias. The party alleging partiality must show, in each specific case, that the position deprives the witness of the impartiality required in court.

In reviewing the appeal, the panel observed that the regional court acknowledged the positions of trust but recorded no evidence that the witnesses held the authority to command and manage that is typical of an employer. Without that concrete showing, simply rejecting the testimony ended up denying the company its fundamental right to an adversarial process and a full defense, guarantees that apply in labor proceedings.

The decision underscores the importance of individualized reasoning when weighing witness testimony. Instead of excluding witnesses in blanket fashion, the judge must examine each witness’s actual position, the extent of that person’s authority, and any specific indications that could undermine the truthfulness of the account. Companies and workers who need to plan their litigation strategy can review the firm’s practice areas.

Bias, legal bars and informants in Brazilian labor courts

Labor proceedings in Brazil apply the Code of Civil Procedure’s rules on witness testimony as a supplement, and Article 447 of the CPC (Brazil’s Code of Civil Procedure) distinguishes two categories that are often confused. A legal bar (impedimento) applies to spouses, blood relatives or in-laws up to the third degree, guardians, conservators, and anyone with a direct interest in the subject of the case. Disqualification for bias (suspeição) applies to a close friend, a sworn enemy, a creditor or debtor of a party, and anyone who advised one of the parties on the matter in dispute. Neither situation is presumed simply because someone holds a position of trust. Concrete proof is required before testimony can be set aside.

The practical consequence of rejecting a witness depends on the defect found. When there is an absolute legal bar, the person cannot testify in any form. In cases of bias, the judge may dispense with the testimony or hear the person as an informant, a category provided for in Article 457 of the Code of Civil Procedure. An informant makes statements without a duty to tell the truth. These statements carry reduced evidentiary weight and serve only as supporting evidence, alongside documents, expert reports and the parties’ own testimony at the hearing.

In disputes over overtime and pay premiums, oral testimony is often decisive, especially when the employer holds the time records or when the records are of the registro britânico kind (entries showing identical clock-in and clock-out times), which case law challenges. For that reason, automatically disqualifying witnesses based only on their job title tends to upset the balance of evidence. It shifts to the party that offered the witnesses a disproportionate burden of producing other evidence in a short time, which reinforces the importance of individualized reasoning when weighing testimony.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is considered a position of trust in Brazilian labor courts?

In labor law, a position of trust refers to roles involving special authority to command, manage or represent the employer, with heightened trust and, as a rule, matching pay. These positions usually follow their own rules on working hours and bonus pay, but whether a job qualifies depends on a concrete analysis of its duties, not just its title.

Who has to prove that a witness is biased?

The burden of proving a witness’s bias falls on the party who alleges it, usually the worker seeking to exclude testimony offered by the employer. It is not enough to point out that the person holds a position of trust. The party must present concrete evidence showing a lack of impartiality, such as authority to command and manage or a direct connection to the subject of the dispute.

How does testifying as an informant instead of a witness work?

When the judge finds some kind of legal bar or bias, the judge may hear the person as an informant, someone who makes statements without a legal duty to tell the truth. An informant’s account carries less evidentiary weight and serves only as supporting evidence, considered alongside the other proof in the case, such as documents, expert reports and the parties’ own testimony.

As informações deste artigo são de caráter informativo e não substituem consulta jurídica individualizada. Cada caso possui particularidades que exigem análise específica.