Labor Justice is based on two central pillars: the primacy of reality and the search for the real truth. The aim is for judgments to accurately reflect the factual situation experienced by the parties, without attachment to formalisms that could distort the essence of the employment relationship. However, the application of this principle, when excessively focused on witness evidence, has generated discussions about the effectiveness and fairness of judgments.
One of the most sensitive aspects of this process is the distribution of the burden of proof. In many cases, documentary evidence is outweighed by witness evidence, raising questions about legal certainty. This article critically explores this dynamic and the risks associated with overvaluing testimonial evidence to the detriment of formal documents.
The Role of Witness Evidence and the Discrepancy in Probative Value
The trial is the moment when the parties present their evidence, seeking to form the magistrate's opinion. Although documentary evidence is a central element, there is an increasing disproportion in the importance given to witness evidence, especially when contrasted with documents signed by the parties involved. This imbalance has caused concern, especially in the field of corporate defense.
While documents often reflect robust and duly formalized internal procedures, witness evidence - permeated by external influences such as personal relationships and resentments - often subverts the value of these records. In cases where unfavorable testimonial evidence leads to convictions, companies end up penalized, even though they have documents that would indicate otherwise.
Witnesses, Influences and Manipulation of Testimony
The nature of witness evidence makes it susceptible to flaws, inaccuracies and distortions, whether intentional or not. The introduction of telephonic hearings in the Labor Courts has exacerbated these risks, since the monitoring of witnesses' incommunicado status and the guarantee that they are not being instructed during their testimonial have become more fragile. This scenario creates an environment ripe for abuse.
In a practical case in which we recently acted for the Defendant, a mistake by the plaintiff's employer in leaving the microphone open revealed direct instructions given to the witnesses on how they should respond. This event exposed the system's vulnerability to manipulation. If this error had not occurred, the defendant could have been convicted on the basis of flawed testimony, ignoring the robustness of the working hours records and other documents presented. This reinforces the idea that the mere testimony of a witness, even if flawed, can subvert months of formal records.
Predatory Advocacy and the Risks of Manipulation
This scenario raises an even broader and more worrying issue: predatory lawyering. By exploiting the fragility of witness evidence and its excessive use, certain lawyers can adopt strategies that seek to maximize gains based on distortions, especially when they encourage biased testimony or articulate tactics that distort the truth. Predatory lawyering, in this context, means exploiting procedural loopholes to obtain favorable decisions at the expense of the integrity of the judicial system.
This practice not only unbalances the procedural game, but also undermines confidence in the judiciary. Companies, already vulnerable to economic and compliance pressure, become easy targets for predatory tactics that seek quick and advantageous results, even at the expense of the truth. The relationship between weak testimonial evidence and predatory advocacy underscores the urgency of reforms in the treatment of oral evidence in the Labor Courts.
The Need for Reform and the Role of Technology
The overvaluation of witness evidence, when not accompanied by a critical and careful analysis of its validity, jeopardizes legal certainty and the very justice that the system aims to promote. It is therefore imperative to review the role of oral evidence and adopt technological tools that allow for more effective control of evidence. Geolocation, for example, can be used to verify the presence of workers at a certain place or time, strengthening the veracity of documentary and oral information.
In addition, the development of methodologies that increase transparency in telepresential hearings is essential. The improvement of incommunicado surveillance practices and the use of artificial intelligence to detect inconsistencies in testimony are examples of how technology can help in the search for a more balanced Labor Justice system.
Conclusion
The fragility of witness evidence in the Labor Courts highlights an imbalance that in many situations favors the plaintiff over the company, even in the face of robust documentary evidence. The exploitation of this scenario by predatory legal practices reinforces the need for a critical review of the system to ensure that documentary truth is given its due value. The future of Labour Justice must involve harmonizing worker protection with the guarantee of a fair process, in which oral testimony is treated with the necessary caution and technology is an ally in preserving procedural fairness.