Brazil's Federal Police recommends dismissal of Eduardo Bolsonaro for job abandonment
The Federal Police (PF) has concluded an administrative disciplinary process and recommended the dismissal of Eduardo Bolsonaro, a Federal Police scribe and former federal deputy, for abandoning his post. The recommendation has been forwarded to the Minister of Justice, who will make the final decision. The investigation found that Bolsonaro did not return to his duties after losing his mandate in the Chamber of Deputies. This case highlights the concept of job abandonment, which has different implications for public servants compared to private sector employees. While the term is common, its practical application, particularly regarding defined timeframes, often causes confusion.
In the private sector, job abandonment is grounds for just cause dismissal but lacks a strict legal deadline. Courts typically consider prolonged, unjustified absence coupled with the employee's intent not to return, known as 'animus abandonandi.' A 30-day period is often used as a benchmark, but not an automatic trigger. Employers must demonstrate this intent, considering potential legitimate reasons for absence such as illness or hospitalization, and must attempt to contact the employee and formally summon them back to work before dismissal. Failure to do so can invalidate the dismissal.
For public servants like Bolsonaro, specific statutes and administrative procedures apply. Federal law defines job abandonment as over 30 consecutive days of intentional absence. For Federal Police officers, specific legislation allows for dismissal after 30 consecutive unjustified absences or 60 alternating days within 12 months. However, even with objective criteria, a formal Administrative Disciplinary Process (PAD) is mandatory to investigate, allow for justification, and ensure the right to defense before any sanction is applied. In Bolsonaro's case, the disciplinary commission's recommendation is subject to the final decision of the competent authority.
This case underscores the critical distinction between absence and intentional job abandonment, particularly within public service where due process and specific statutes govern disciplinary actions. The Federal Police's recommendation for dismissal, pending ministerial review, highlights the procedural safeguards required before a public servant can be removed from their post. The analysis of job abandonment, whether in the private or public sector, hinges on demonstrating not just prolonged absence but also a clear intent to sever employment ties. This legal principle protects against arbitrary dismissals, acknowledging that unforeseen circumstances can prevent timely communication. The requirement for formal notification and the opportunity for defense are crucial elements of administrative fairness, ensuring that sanctions are applied judiciously and in accordance with established legal frameworks. The case also implicitly raises questions about the expectations and obligations of public officials who may hold elected office concurrently with civil service positions, and the implications of extended absences from their primary roles.
AI-generated to prompt reflection — not editorial opinion, not advice, not a statement of fact. How this works.