On September 11, the trial on the legality of collecting the assistance contribution from non-unionized workers came to a close.
The assistance contribution, provided for in art. 513 of the CLT, is levied by unions with the aim of financing their actions and services aimed at the professional category they represent, in other words, to encourage collective bargaining and the legal assistance the union provides.
Also known as a negotiating fee, union funding fee, union strengthening fee, among many other nomenclatures, the assistance contribution is included in the clauses of collective bargaining agreements and, in view of the change brought about by the Labor Reform, it could only be collected from employees who are members of unions.
This is because the STF considered it illegal to collect the fee, on the grounds that imposing payment on non-members not only violated the principle of freedom of trade union association, but also the system of wage protection.
However, with the judgment of the appeal with general repercussion declared by the STF, there was a change in understanding, and it was considered valid to demand an assistance contribution for employees who are members or not, as long as the right of opposition by non-members is ensured.
Thus, according to the new position, all workers in the professional category covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement will be required to pay an attendance contribution, except for those who object, the deadline and rules for which must be set out in the respective collective bargaining rules.
In practice, employers will have to pay close attention to the Collective Bargaining Agreements and Collective Agreements applicable to the company’s category, since it is their responsibility to deduct the percentage indicated from the worker’s salary, under penalty of paying a fine and the unions filing a lawsuit against them. Therefore, they will need to inform workers of the form and deadlines for submitting objections, as well as file supporting documentation in each worker’s file to justify why the deduction was not made.
We would also like to point out that, since the assistance contribution is considered legal, there is the possibility that companies will also be charged by the employers’ unions, insofar as the legislation did not attribute this prerogative only to the workers’ unions, and it is necessary to observe whether there was an amount earmarked for companies in the collective rules.
It is also important to add that this judgment does not change the rule for other sources of union funding, such as union dues and employer contributions, which remain optional and require the express agreement of the parties for payment.
It is essential to note that, given the changes brought about by this ruling, it is highly recommended that companies seek legal advice on how to properly apply the guidelines according to the specific context of each organization.
