Hipossuficiência digital e a participação das partes em audiências trabalhistas durante a pandemia de COVID-19 no âmbito do Tribunal Regional do Trabalho da 7ª Região

Abstract

The sudden scenario of social isolation caused by the pandemic of the new coronavirus brought to the Brazilian Judiciary the need for urgent adaptations in its method of accomplishing procedural acts. In the labour procedure, especially with regard to hearings, since this instrument constitutes an essential element for the delineation of other procedural steps, constant and significant changes were necessary in the previously adopted models, in order to guarantee the continuity of the judicial assistance. In that regard, the present research aims to verify what changes took place within the scope of the Regional Labor Court of the 7th Region regarding the holding of hearings during the Covid-19 pandemic, considering the guarantee of access to justice, and analyzing how the pandemic affected the access of the digitally disadvantaged in the TRT-7. The work aims, as secondary objectives, to present some characteristics of labor hearings; analyze how the Regional Labor Court of the 7th Region reacted to the urgency of promoting measures to circumvent the lockdown; discuss the principle of access to justice, relating it to the digitally disadvantaged parts and discuss the practices adopted by the TRT-7 with regard to holding hearings during the Covid-19 pandemic and the implications for the parties arising from this model. The research has a qualitative nature, using the hypothetical-deductive method. In addition, the exploratory research technique was used, through bibliographic and documentary research, with the review and analysis of normative instruments, such as acts, resolutions and ordinances of the TRT-7, as well as the National Council of Justice that were adopted by the Court above. As a result, it was understood that, during the Covid- 19 pandemic, the TRT-7 was not able to adapt its methodology for holding hearings in order to guarantee the continuity of the jurisdictional provision so that the digitally disadvantaged had their right of access to justice assured. What was observed were only two acts that contained provisions about the hearings and some user manuals of the platform adopted to hold the hearing, which in no way contributed to guaranteeing access to justice for the digitally disadvantaged.