Post by account_disabled on Mar 10, 2024 1:08:29 GMT -5
Linking the Minimum Wage to Establish Minimum Remuneration for a Professional Category Is Unconstitutional. with This Understanding, the Plenary of the Federal Supreme Court Decided, as a Preliminary Step, to Delink the Minimum Remuneration of Radiology Technicians from the National Minimum Wage, Determining Its Conversion into Monetary Value. the Court Also Decided That the Monetary Value of the Current Minimum Category Must Be Readjusted Annually Based on the General Parameters That Govern the Adjustment of Salaries in the Country. the Adjustment Will Be Valid Until a New Federal Law Is Proposed That Regulates the Minimum Professional Salary of the Category, Convention or Collective Agreement That Defines It Or, Even, a State Law Supported by Complementary Law /, Which Authorizes the States to Establish the Salary Floor at Referred to in Section V of Article of the Constitution, When There Is No Specific Federal Law in This Regard.
the Ministers Analyzed the Allegation of Non-Compliance with a Fundamental Precept Proposed by the National Health Confederation (Cns). According to the Entity, Article of Law ,/, Which Regulates the Exercise of the Profession of Radiology Technician, Is Illegal. the Provision Sets the Minimum Wage for Professionals at a Value “Equivalent to Two Professional Minimum Wages in the Region, with a % Risk to Life and Unhealthy Conditions Being Applied to These Salaries”. According to the Cns, the Expression “Minimum Professional Wages in the Region” Is Equivalent to the Minimum Austria Phone Numbers List Wage, Which Constitutes an Offense to the Constitution, in Its Article , Item Iv, Which Established the Nationally Unified Minimum Wage and Prohibits Its Binding for Any Purpose. According to the Entity, There Was Also an Offense Against Binding Precedent of the Stf: “Except in the Cases Provided for in the Constitution, the Minimum Wage Cannot Be Used as an Index for Calculating the Benefits of Public Servants or Employees, nor Can It Be Replaced by a Decision Judicial". the Adpf Votes Were Filed in November and the Injunction Request Began to Be Judged on December ,
Time, the Reporting Minister, Joaquim Barbosa, Rejected the Request. Minister Marco Aurélio Spoke in Favor of Approval and Minister Gilmar Mendes Asked for a Review. in This Wednesday's Session (/), Gilmar Mendes Proposed the Partial Granting of the Injunction, a Measure Accepted by the Majority of Ministers. He Considered the Fact That Law ,/ Has Been in Force for Years. on the Other Hand, He Recognized the Unconstitutionality of Article in Order Not to Support the Unconstitutionality of the Device or Harm the Category, the Minister Proposed That the Category's Salary Be Set at Current Monetary Value, No Longer Linked to the Minimum, with Annual Readjustment in Accordance with the General Criteria for Salary Adjustment. Joaquim Barbosa, One of the Three Unsuccessful Votes, Maintained His Decision to Reject the Injunction Request, Defending a Broad Consultation with the Professional and Employer Categories Involved. He Considered That the Injunction Granted by the Stf “Is Reckless” and Best Serves the Interests of Employers. Minister Ellen Gracie, Who Followed the Rapporteur's Vote, Expressed Her Option for Deciding the Dispute Only in Her Judgment on the Merits. Minister Marco Aurélio Defended the Suspension of the Effectiveness of the Contested Device. with Information from the Stf Press Office.
the Ministers Analyzed the Allegation of Non-Compliance with a Fundamental Precept Proposed by the National Health Confederation (Cns). According to the Entity, Article of Law ,/, Which Regulates the Exercise of the Profession of Radiology Technician, Is Illegal. the Provision Sets the Minimum Wage for Professionals at a Value “Equivalent to Two Professional Minimum Wages in the Region, with a % Risk to Life and Unhealthy Conditions Being Applied to These Salaries”. According to the Cns, the Expression “Minimum Professional Wages in the Region” Is Equivalent to the Minimum Austria Phone Numbers List Wage, Which Constitutes an Offense to the Constitution, in Its Article , Item Iv, Which Established the Nationally Unified Minimum Wage and Prohibits Its Binding for Any Purpose. According to the Entity, There Was Also an Offense Against Binding Precedent of the Stf: “Except in the Cases Provided for in the Constitution, the Minimum Wage Cannot Be Used as an Index for Calculating the Benefits of Public Servants or Employees, nor Can It Be Replaced by a Decision Judicial". the Adpf Votes Were Filed in November and the Injunction Request Began to Be Judged on December ,
Time, the Reporting Minister, Joaquim Barbosa, Rejected the Request. Minister Marco Aurélio Spoke in Favor of Approval and Minister Gilmar Mendes Asked for a Review. in This Wednesday's Session (/), Gilmar Mendes Proposed the Partial Granting of the Injunction, a Measure Accepted by the Majority of Ministers. He Considered the Fact That Law ,/ Has Been in Force for Years. on the Other Hand, He Recognized the Unconstitutionality of Article in Order Not to Support the Unconstitutionality of the Device or Harm the Category, the Minister Proposed That the Category's Salary Be Set at Current Monetary Value, No Longer Linked to the Minimum, with Annual Readjustment in Accordance with the General Criteria for Salary Adjustment. Joaquim Barbosa, One of the Three Unsuccessful Votes, Maintained His Decision to Reject the Injunction Request, Defending a Broad Consultation with the Professional and Employer Categories Involved. He Considered That the Injunction Granted by the Stf “Is Reckless” and Best Serves the Interests of Employers. Minister Ellen Gracie, Who Followed the Rapporteur's Vote, Expressed Her Option for Deciding the Dispute Only in Her Judgment on the Merits. Minister Marco Aurélio Defended the Suspension of the Effectiveness of the Contested Device. with Information from the Stf Press Office.