Group on WhatsApp - https://bit.ly/grupo_whatsapp-thiago-... ____ Talk to my team via WhatsApp: (66) 9-9693-8587 Or, just click on this link: https://bit.ly /WhatsApp_Thiago_Machado ____ Ordinance Link: MTE ORDINANCE Nº 342 http://www.in.gov.br/web/dou/-/portar... MTE ORDINANCE Nº 344 https://www.in.gov.br/en /web/dou/-/po... ____ What happened? On 03/22/2024, MTE ORDER No. 342, OF MARCH 21, 2024, was published, which changes the wording of the items relating to the exercise of the right of refusal in NR- 01 - General Provisions and Management of Occupational Risks and in NR- 31 - Safety and Health at Work in Agriculture, Livestock, Forestry, Forestry and Aquaculture. On the same day, Ordinance 344 was also published. Also on March 22, 2024, MTE ORDINANCE No. 344, OF MARCH 21, 2024, was published, which amended Annex I - Terms and definitions - of Regulatory Standard No. 01 (NR-01 ). What does Ordinance 342/2024 say about NR 1? Art. 1st Item 1.4.3 and subitem 1.4.3.1 of Regulatory Standard No. 1 (NR-1) - General Provisions and Occupational Risk Management, published by SEPRT Ordinance No. 6,730, of March 9, 2020, come into force with the following changes: As it was: 1.4.3 The employee may interrupt his activities when he finds a work situation that, in his opinion, involves a serious and imminent risk to his life and health, immediately informing his superior. 1.4.3.1 If the employer proves a situation of serious and imminent risk, employees cannot be required to return to work until corrective measures have been taken. How it turned out: 1.4.3 The worker may interrupt his activities when he finds a work situation that, in his opinion, for reasonable reasons, involves a serious and imminent risk to his life or health, immediately informing his superior. 1.4.3.1 The employer cannot require employees to return to work until corrective measures are taken to address a situation of serious and imminent risk to their life or health. 1.4.3.2 The worker must be protected from unjustified consequences, as a result of the interruption provided for in the caput of item 1.4.3 of this NR. 1.4.3.3 The worker must immediately communicate to his superior any work situations that involve a serious and imminent risk to his life or health, as well as to third parties. What does Ordinance 342/2024 say about NR 31? Art. 3rd Subitems 31.2.5.1 and 31.2.5.2 of Regulatory Standard No. 31 (NR-31) - Safety and Health at Work in Agriculture, Livestock, Forestry, Forestry and Aquaculture, published by SEPRT Ordinance No. 22,677, of October 22, 2020, come into force with the following changes: As it was: 31.2.5.1 The employee may interrupt his activities when he finds a work situation that, in his opinion, involves a serious and imminent risk to his life and health, immediately informing his superior . 31.2.5.2 If the employer proves a situation of serious and imminent risk, employees cannot be required to return to work until corrective measures have been taken. How it turned out: 31.2.5.1 The employee may interrupt his activities when he finds a work situation that, in his opinion, for reasonable reasons, involves a serious and imminent risk to his life or health, immediately informing his superior. 31.2.5.2 The employer cannot require employees to return to work until corrective measures are taken to address a situation of serious and imminent risk to their life or health. 31.2.5.3 The worker must be protected from unjustified consequences, as a result of the interruption provided for in subitem 31.2.5.1 of this NR. 31.2.5.4 The worker must immediately communicate to his superior any work situations that involve a serious and imminent risk to his life or health, as well as to third parties. In short: Ordinance 342 of 03/21/24 changed NR 1 and NR 31, in the fields where it defines Serious and Imminent Risk; This ordinance introduced the term “FOR REASONABLE REASONS”, however, it did not present us with a definition of this term; It is recommended in this case that, if the worker exercises this right of refusal, the company should apply an APR (Preliminary Risk Analysis) to assess whether this condition really constitutes a Serious and Imminent Risk or not; It can also be a good alternative to train workers to identify possible Serious and Imminent Risk conditions, so that they can have better criteria before stopping their activities (this is a two-way street); This ordinance also brought the condition that the worker who uses this condition is protected against possible unjustified consequences.