In March, the Superior Labor Court (TST) began a new phase in the discussion of cases involving workers’ opposition to paying union dues.
The Full Court of the TST admitted an Incident for the Resolution of Repetitive Demands (IRDR), a procedural mechanism that seeks to standardize case law, in other words, to ensure that cases dealing with the same issue are judged consistently, with a view to legal certainty.
In this specific case, the TST is seeking to establish the appropriate criteria for non-unionized employees to exercise their right to object to paying union dues, determining how, when and where non-unionized employees can exercise this right.
The issue has generated intense debate since the Federal Supreme Court (STF) ruled that it is constitutional to impose assistance contributions on all workers, even non-unionized ones, as long as the right to oppose this contribution is guaranteed. However, the STF did not specify how this right of opposition should be exercised. According to Justice Guilherme Augusto Caputo Bastos, it is necessary to establish objective criteria to guarantee this right and prevent the levy from becoming compulsory.
Reporting Justice Caputo Bastos stated that the IRDR fulfills all the necessary requirements and highlighted the controversy that exists in the judgments of the Regional Courts, especially with regard to the “manner, time and place appropriate for the employee to refute payment”.
To illustrate the relevance of the issue, the Reporting Justice presented a survey carried out by the Statistics Coordination Office, which includes 2,423 cases dealing with the same matter, pointing out that the antagonism found in the votes presented in the decision demonstrates the risk to the principle of isonomy and legal certainty.
With the opening of the incident, the Reporting Justice will be able to summon parties, people and other interested entities to speak out, providing information relevant to the judgment and the definition of these theses. In addition, he may determine the efficiency of a public hearing to instruct the procedure.
However, the definition of criteria by the STF in the judgment of the appeal ARE (Extraordinary Appeal with Interlocutory Appeal) 1018459, which deals with the unconstitutionality of the assistance contribution imposed on non-unionized employees by agreement, collective bargaining agreement or sentence, could affect the judgment of the incident at the TST, which is not yet scheduled to begin.
In any case, establishing objective and clear parameters on the manner, form and deadline for objecting to the payment of the attendance contribution is extremely important for guaranteeing workers’ rights and the legal security of companies, which are responsible for organizing and withholding the respective amounts directly from the payroll, for later transfer to the unions.
If you have any questions on the subject, our labor team is at your disposal.
