The court cannot treat health policy as an afterthought.
Em Minas Gerais, o que deveria ser um gesto rotineiro de cuidado institucional — a vacinação contra a gripe antes do pico do inverno — revelou-se um espelho de descaso administrativo. O Tribunal de Justiça falhou na licitação das vacinas, respondeu ao sindicato com quase três semanas de atraso e comunicou a campanha apenas quando ela já estava prestes a encerrar. No grande arco da saúde coletiva, a proteção preventiva só tem valor quando chega a tempo — e o tempo, desta vez, foi desperdiçado pela falta de planejamento.
- O processo licitatório do TJMG para vacinas tetravalentes contra influenza fracassou completamente em abril, deixando o tribunal sem imunizantes às vésperas da temporada de doenças respiratórias.
- O sindicato enviou consulta formal em 8 de maio e só recebeu resposta em 27 de maio — quando a campanha, realizada em apenas quatro dias, já estava quase encerrada.
- Sem comunicação prévia aos servidores, a vacinação ficou restrita a quem estava no lugar certo na hora certa, tornando o acesso fragmentado e desigual.
- A intervenção da Secretaria Estadual de Saúde e a parceria com a Prefeitura de Belo Horizonte salvaram parcialmente a situação, mas as 800 doses administradas não alcançaram a maioria dos funcionários.
- Servidores que perderam a janela de quatro dias precisam agora buscar vacinas trivalentes — com menor cobertura — nas unidades públicas de seus municípios, com o período ideal de imunização se estreitando.
- O sindicato prometeu intensificar a pressão para que o tribunal cumpra a orientação do CNJ de 2015 e implante políticas permanentes de promoção à saúde para juízes e servidores.
No início de maio, com a temporada de vírus respiratórios se aproximando, o sindicato dos servidores do judiciário mineiro fez uma pergunta simples ao TJMG: havia plano para a vacinação contra gripe? A resposta chegou quase três semanas depois, em 27 de maio, informando que a campanha havia começado dois dias antes e encerraria no dia seguinte. A janela estava praticamente fechada.
O motivo do atraso era constrangedor: a licitação para aquisição de vacinas tetravalentes, realizada em abril, havia fracassado. O tribunal não tinha imunizante para oferecer. Só uma decisão da Secretaria Estadual de Saúde, em 12 de maio, ampliando a vacinação gratuita para toda a população, abriu uma saída. O tribunal firmou parceria com a Prefeitura de Belo Horizonte, que cedeu 800 doses aplicadas no fórum entre os dias 25 e 28 de maio — quatro dias, sem aviso prévio ao sindicato nem aos servidores.
Felipe Rodrigues, coordenador-geral do sindicato, classificou a condução como improvisada. Lembrou que, sem a expansão do programa público, muitos servidores teriam arcado com o custo da vacina do próprio bolso. Patrícia de Oliveira, diretora de saúde e assistência social da entidade, foi direta: o sindicato havia pedido as informações justamente para organizar sua própria campanha de vacinação para os filiados, como fizera em anos anteriores. Com a resposta chegando após o encerramento, qualquer mobilização tornou-se impossível.
Quem perdeu os quatro dias precisa agora procurar unidades de saúde no próprio município para receber a vacina trivalente — proteção contra três cepas, não quatro —, levando documento de identidade, carteira de vacinação e CPF ou cartão do SUS. O sindicato pede urgência, pois o período ideal para a imunização está se esgotando.
A entidade anunciou que vai pressionar o tribunal para que situações como essa não se repitam. O CNJ já havia orientado, em 2015, que todos os tribunais adotassem políticas permanentes de promoção à saúde. O TJMG, segundo o sindicato, ainda não o fez. O que deveria ser uma campanha organizada tornou-se uma corrida contra o tempo — e muitos servidores ficaram para trás.
In early May, as respiratory illness season approached, the judicial workers' union in Minas Gerais asked the state court system a straightforward question: what was the plan for flu vaccination? The answer came nearly three weeks later, on May 27th, in the form of a brief notice that the vaccination campaign had already started two days prior and would end the next day. By the time the court responded, the window had nearly closed.
The union had submitted its formal inquiry on May 8th, requesting details about the influenza vaccination program and whether the court would actually carry it out that year. The timing was deliberate. Respiratory viruses peak in winter, and the union wanted to ensure staff could be protected before the season hit hardest. But the court's procurement process had collapsed. The bidding for tetravalent flu vaccines, conducted in April, had failed entirely. The court had no vaccine to offer.
It took an intervention from the state health department on May 12th—a decision to expand free flu vaccination through the public health system to the entire population—that created an opening. The court then partnered with Belo Horizonte's municipal government, which provided 800 doses. These were administered over four days at the courthouse, from May 25th through May 28th. The problem was not just the compressed timeline. The union was never told in advance. Neither, apparently, were most of the court's employees. There was no announcement, no notice, no organized effort to ensure staff knew vaccination was available.
Felipe Rodrigues, the union's general coordinator, described the approach as improvised and inadequate. "The court cannot treat health policy as an afterthought," he said. "Flu vaccination requires planning and advance procurement processes. If the state and the city had not expanded the public vaccination program, many employees would have had to pay out of pocket." The union pointed out that the National Council of Justice had issued guidance in 2015 directing all courts to implement permanent health promotion policies for judges and staff. The Minas Gerais court had not done so.
Patrícia de Oliveira, the union's director of health and social affairs, was more pointed. The union had specifically asked for information in early May so it could organize its own vaccination campaign for members—something it had done in previous years when the court failed to act. "When the administration responds only after the campaign is nearly finished, it makes union outreach impossible," she said. "Access to vaccination becomes limited to whoever happens to be in the right place at the right time."
Now employees who missed the four-day window must seek out public health clinics in their home municipalities for the trivalent vaccine, which protects against three strains of influenza. They need to bring identification, their vaccination card if they have one, and either a public health card or tax ID number. The union is urging everyone to get vaccinated immediately, as the optimal window for immunity is narrowing. The court's failure to plan ahead means that protection against the season's peak illness will be incomplete and uneven across the workforce.
The union has vowed to increase pressure on the court to prevent similar failures in future years. The court system, it argues, has a basic obligation to plan adequately and communicate transparently about health measures that affect its entire workforce. What should have been a routine, well-organized campaign became instead a scramble, leaving many employees to fend for themselves.
Notable Quotes
The court cannot treat health policy as an afterthought. Flu vaccination requires planning and advance procurement processes.— Felipe Rodrigues, general coordinator of SINJUS
When the administration responds only after the campaign is nearly finished, it makes union outreach impossible. Access to vaccination becomes limited to whoever happens to be in the right place at the right time.— Patrícia de Oliveira, director of health and social affairs, SINJUS
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did the union wait until May 8th to ask about the vaccination campaign? Shouldn't they have known earlier?
They should have. But the court had failed to organize vaccination in previous years, so the union learned to push for answers early in the season. May 8th was their attempt to get ahead of it. The court's silence for three weeks made that impossible.
The court said it had a failed procurement process. Is that a common problem?
It happens, but not usually when something this essential is at stake. The court had months to prepare. The fact that they were still without vaccine in late May, when respiratory season was already beginning, suggests no one was treating it as urgent.
Why does the union's own vaccination campaign matter so much?
Because it reaches people the court doesn't. When the court finally acts, it's often too late or too narrow. The union's campaign is their backup plan—a way to ensure members actually get protected. But they can't organize that if they don't know what the court is doing.
Could employees have just gone to public health clinics on their own?
They could now, but not everyone knows to do that, and not everyone has the flexibility to leave work. A workplace campaign is direct, accessible, and sends a message that the employer cares about your health. Silence sends the opposite message.
What happens if this happens again next year?
The union says it will push harder. But the real question is whether the court will actually plan ahead instead of scrambling. That requires treating health as a priority, not an afterthought.