Post by account_disabled on Jan 25, 2024 4:13:28 GMT
Rapporteur Minister Delaíde Miranda Arantes, Subsection I Specialized in Individual Disputes, DEJT 04/27/2012);" Within the scope of the Courts of Justice, especially in São Paulo, however, the scope of such an interpretation was much greater, denoting extreme flexibility in the concept of “contribution”, encompassing as such both direct payment (disbursement), with a discount on the portion /co-participation in payroll, in terms of indirect contribution, a modality in which the employer fully pays for the health plan, in which case this was considered a form of remuneration for the employee (which would constitute an indirect salary).
Under such an approach, the simple fact that the Buy Phone Number List employer offers its employee a Health Plan would be, as it characterizes this salary in natura, sufficient to configure the contribution provided for in law 9,656/98, and thus give the employee the opportunity to automatically be entitled to to remain a beneficiary of the plan, if dismissed or retired. This was the case on the occasion of the judgment of Appeal 0025375-44.2010.8.26.0554, in which this reasoning remained established: “(…) the co-participation system does not fail to configure the consideration, therefore not distorting the requirements of article 31 of Law 9,656 /98, this is because there was effective payment by the appellant for more than ten years, so that he would later be entitled to maintenance of your health plan.
Furthermore, even if this were not the case, the contribution exists, as the insured person received the benefit as a form of indirect salary”. Also during the judgment of Civil Appeal 301.610-4/3-00, the Paulista Court decided that: “The exclusionary exception, in the interpretation given by the appellant to § 6 of art. 30, applicable to article 31 , all of Law 9,656 /98. The lack of clarity in the wording of the invoked paragraph, in itself, already benefits the consumer, who, due to the protective rule of the Consumer Protection Code , cannot hold the interpretation of legal texts against him. If the appellant's argument is accepted, it will be necessary to accept the almost total uselessness of the 'caput', since no retiree could enjoy continuation if they had not paid the benefit together with the employer.
Under such an approach, the simple fact that the Buy Phone Number List employer offers its employee a Health Plan would be, as it characterizes this salary in natura, sufficient to configure the contribution provided for in law 9,656/98, and thus give the employee the opportunity to automatically be entitled to to remain a beneficiary of the plan, if dismissed or retired. This was the case on the occasion of the judgment of Appeal 0025375-44.2010.8.26.0554, in which this reasoning remained established: “(…) the co-participation system does not fail to configure the consideration, therefore not distorting the requirements of article 31 of Law 9,656 /98, this is because there was effective payment by the appellant for more than ten years, so that he would later be entitled to maintenance of your health plan.
Furthermore, even if this were not the case, the contribution exists, as the insured person received the benefit as a form of indirect salary”. Also during the judgment of Civil Appeal 301.610-4/3-00, the Paulista Court decided that: “The exclusionary exception, in the interpretation given by the appellant to § 6 of art. 30, applicable to article 31 , all of Law 9,656 /98. The lack of clarity in the wording of the invoked paragraph, in itself, already benefits the consumer, who, due to the protective rule of the Consumer Protection Code , cannot hold the interpretation of legal texts against him. If the appellant's argument is accepted, it will be necessary to accept the almost total uselessness of the 'caput', since no retiree could enjoy continuation if they had not paid the benefit together with the employer.