Submitted by PPG Direito (ppgdir@pucrs.br) on 2017-12-13T17:26:39Z
No. of bitstreams: 1
VIN?CIUS_JOS?_ROCKENBACH_PORTELA_DIS.pdf: 1297929 bytes, checksum: 62d6c68d277e555a2ac184919275176e (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Caroline Xavier (caroline.xavier@pucrs.br) on 2017-12-19T13:04:00Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1
VIN?CIUS_JOS?_ROCKENBACH_PORTELA_DIS.pdf: 1297929 bytes, checksum: 62d6c68d277e555a2ac184919275176e (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-12-19T13:35:48Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
VIN?CIUS_JOS?_ROCKENBACH_PORTELA_DIS.pdf: 1297929 bytes, checksum: 62d6c68d277e555a2ac184919275176e (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2017-03-30 / Coordena??o de Aperfei?oamento de Pessoal de N?vel Superior - CAPES / With the advent of the new Code of Civil Procedure (Law no. 13.105/2015), it emerged the obligation of analytical reasoning in judgments, laid down in article 489, paragraph 1, of the CPC, which sets forth the hypothesis in which will be not considered, for all legal purposes, reasoned the judgments. It turns out that part of the doctrine and the jurisprudence opposed barriers to the application of the referred legal dispositive to the procedural labor law, for they understand that it would not be fulfilled the requirements set out in article 769 of the CLT. In other words, under the arguments that there is no gap in the labor process ordinance and that the analytical reasoning would be incompatible with the procedural labor law. On the other hand, the other part of the doctrine and jurisprudence holds that the analytical reasoning is an important legal mechanism in combating judicial activism present in the labor courts, supporting the completion of the requirements set out in the law for implementation of common standards in labor process. Therefore, the doctrinal and jurisprudential debate, it abides to this work to address scientifically the question inherent in the requirement of analytical reasoning of judicial decisions in the labor process, mainly aiming to submit a proposal of a solution to this problem. After long research stabilized in doctrine and jurisprudence, it reaches two main conclusions. The first is that the article 489 of the CPC is not incompatible with the systematic and principiology of the procedural labor law, which is, therefore, perfectly applicable supplementarily to the labor process, before the existence of partial regulatory gap in CLT. Finally, the second conclusion is that it is essential that they are committed to efforts for the creation of a Code of Labor Procedure that contains sufficient mechanisms for the solution of the problems that plague labor relations in the present days, because, only that way, the labor process will return to have its vanguard status of a rapid, simple and effective process model, pursued by other procedural systems. / Com o advento do novo C?digo de Processo Civil (Lei n? 13.105/2015), surgiu o dever de fundamenta??o anal?tica das decis?es judiciais, previsto no artigo 489, par?grafo 1?, do CPC, o qual elenca as hip?teses em que n?o ser?o consideradas, para todos os efeitos legais, fundamentadas as decis?es judiciais. Ocorre que parte da doutrina e da jurisprud?ncia op?s entraves a aplica??o do referido dispositivo legal ao Processo do Trabalho, por entenderem que n?o estariam preenchidos os requisitos previstos no artigo 769 da CLT, isto ?, sob os argumentos de que n?o h? lacuna no ordenamento processual trabalhista e de que a fundamenta??o anal?tica seria incompat?vel com o Processo do Trabalho. De outro lado, a outra parte da doutrina e jurisprud?ncia defende que a fundamenta??o anal?tica ? um importante mecanismo legal no combate ao protagonismo judicial presente na Justi?a do Trabalho, sustentando o preenchimento dos requisitos fixados na lei para aplica??o da norma comum ao processo laboral. Posta, pois, a celeuma doutrin?ria e jurisprudencial, cumpre ao presente trabalho abordar cientificamente a quest?o inerente ? obrigatoriedade de fundamenta??o anal?tica das decis?es judiciais no Processo do Trabalho, objetivando-se, principalmente, apresentar uma proposta de solu??o para esse problema. Ap?s longa pesquisa lastreada na doutrina e jurisprud?ncia, chega-se a duas principais conclus?es. A primeira ? de que o artigo 489, caput e par?grafos, do CPC, n?o s?o incompat?veis com a sistem?tica e a principiologia processual trabalhista, sendo, por conseguinte, perfeitamente aplic?veis supletivamente ao Processo do Trabalho, ante a exist?ncia de lacuna normativa parcial na CLT. Por fim, a segunda conclus?o ? de que ? imprescind?vel que sejam empenhados esfor?os para a cria??o de um C?digo de Processo do Trabalho que contenha mecanismos suficientes para a solu??o dos problemas que assolam as rela??es de trabalho nos dias atuais, pois, s? assim, o Processo do Trabalho voltar? a ter seu status de vanguarda e de modelo de processo c?lere, simples e efetivo, perseguido pelos demais sistemas processuais.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:IBICT/oai:tede2.pucrs.br:tede/7776 |
| Date | 30 March 2017 |
| Creators | Portela, Vin?cius Jos? Rockenbach |
| Contributors | Fincato, Denise Pires |
| Publisher | Pontif?cia Universidade Cat?lica do Rio Grande do Sul, Programa de P?s-Gradua??o em Direito, PUCRS, Brasil, Escola de Direito |
| Source Sets | IBICT Brazilian ETDs |
| Language | Portuguese |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion, info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | reponame:Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da PUC_RS, instname:Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, instacron:PUC_RS |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| Relation | -1046629855937119302, 500, 500, 500, 600, 4512033976268881925, -7277407233034425144, 2075167498588264571 |
Page generated in 0.0023 seconds