Justice AM rejects appeal and recognizes the constitutionality of Law Queues

The law requires dealers, agencies, lottery, health centers and supermarkets to provide sufficient staff in the public service sectors.
11/07/2018 16h13 - Updated 12/07/2018 17h26
Photo: disclosure

The Plenum of the Amazon Court (TJAM) rejected opposites embargoes by Amazon Association of Supermarkets (or) and kept judgment decision that recognized the constitutionality of the Municipal Law 1836/2014 and amended the Law No. 167/2005 (Law Queues). The law requires utilities, Bank agencies, lottery, providers of health services and supermarkets in the city of Manaus to provide sufficient staff in their enclosures, in Customer Service sectors.

The rapporteur of embargoes (No 0008821-15.2017.8.04.0000), chief judge Socorro Guedes, in his vote, rejected opposites embargoes by Amase and confirmed decision rejecting injunction claimed by the entity filed against the said law. The vote of the rapporteur was accompanied unanimously by the other judges of the Amazon Court.

In the application of the direct action of unconstitutionality / ADI (No 4002351-65.2015.8.04.0000), the Amase sought suspension of Municipal Law No. 1836/2014 arguing that that legislation invades federal jurisdiction. "As specifically defined and structured in the art. 22 of the Federal Constitution, the item 'R' of said device constitutional, with exclusivity, reserve to the Federal Government competence to rule on commercial matters and labor, harvest invaded by municipal law, which introduces new obligations for exercising the business activity of hypermarkets and supermarkets ", tells Amase in the records.

A relatora by ADI, chief judge Socorro Guedes, in his vote, rejecting the precautionary measure and claimed by Amase, in harmony with the opinion of the State Prosecutor (MPE), He said: "The waiting time in queues in supermarkets and similar aims to guarantee and protect local consumers, why it falls within the scope of matters of local interest of the municipality who is responsible for their discipline pursuant to Article. 125, Item I of the State Constitution and art. 30, The engraved by Magna Carta ", He mentioned the rapporteur.

Against the argument of Amase that the requirements of the Act countered result in retraction of entrepreneurial activities and consequently, fewer jobs, a federal judge Socorro Guedes recalled that "the forecast maintenance employees in number compatible with the flow of consumers does not imply new employees hiring requirement (…) only serves to give effect to timely service to consumers, guideline to be observed in the creation of employee scales or adjust them according to peak times, for example", says magistrate, whose vote was followed by the Full TJAM and motivated to join with Amase declaratory embargos contesting the decision.

In the analysis of embargoes, a federal judge Socorro Guedes dismissed the claim of the applicant, noting that the declaratory embargos, as stated by Article. 1.022 the Civil Procedure Code / 2015, are intended solely to sanitary omissions, darks, material contradictions or errors found in court decisions. "In these terms, I gather that the nonconformity of the objector does not deserve to prosper, given that his reasons reveal that only the review of the cause order, which is not admitted to the objectivity of the managed resource ", said the magistrate, whose vote was accompanied by the Plenum of TJAM.


*** If you are in favor of a totally free and impartial press, collaborate enjoying our page on Facebook and visiting often the AM POST.


Contact Terms of use