Labour & Employment | Edition 25

15.04.2026

Key Highlights

Appeal Deposit Made by a Third Party is Admissible

The Superior Labour Court (TST) recognised the validity of the payment of court costs and appeal deposits by a third party not involved in the proceedings, provided that the requirements applicable to the main party are met. The thesis was established in the judgment of repetitive appeals (Topic 41) and will guide decisions of the Labour Courts at all levels. For validity, the appeal deposit must be made in legal tender, in the full amount, within the appeal deadline, and supported by proper proof containing elements linking the payment to the case. Source: SLC

Public Aid Benefit of Labour Debtor Cannot be Seized

The Superior Labour Court (TST) suspended the monthly garnishment of 30% of a Public Aid Benefit (BPC) received by an 80-year-old woman, a partner in a company subject to enforcement for labour debt. Although, in principle, the act was not unlawful, the panel held that it was not possible to seize an amount legally defined as the minimum necessary for subsistence without violating the principle of human dignity. Source: SLC

Discriminatory Conduct Involving Racism

The 1st Panel of the Regional Labour Court of Rio Grande do Sul (RLC RS) upheld the award of compensation for moral damages to a machine operator who suffered discrimination by his employer. The panel found that the code of conduct distributed to employees included images of a black woman eating a banana, which led to jokes and embarrassing comments. Other proven discriminatory practices included prejudiced remarks during meetings, as well as assigning only black employees to machine-cleaning duties while exempting others from such tasks. Source: RLC RS

Invalidity of Collective Agreement Providing for an 8-Hour Inter-Shift Rest Period

The 7th Panel of the Superior Labour Court (SLC) upheld a decision granting overtime pay to an employee whose rest interval between shifts was only 8 hours. According to the panel, the minimum 11-hour interval provided by law is a rule of occupational health and safety and cannot be relaxed, even if a collective agreement provides for compensatory time off, as it is a non-waivable fundamental right. Source: SLC

Invalidity of Witness Evidence Due to Prior Contact with Counsel

The 5th Panel of the Superior Labour Court (SLC) confirmed that a conversation between a company’s lawyer and its witness, a few minutes before the evidentiary hearing, is sufficient to compromise the integrity of the testimony. Unanimously, the panel rejected the allegation of denial of defence and upheld the decision disregarding the testimony. At the hearing, the judge noted that contact with counsel could influence the witness’s statement and affect its credibility. Source: SLC

Service of Process on a Labour Defendant via WhatsApp is Valid

The Superior Labour Court (SLC) rejected a rural producer’s request to invalidate service of process carried out via WhatsApp. According to the panel, the procedure is valid even if the recipient claims not to have read the message or not to have had direct access to its content, since procedural acts carried out electronically form part of labour proceedings, which are guided by simplicity. Source: SLC

Suspension of Limitation Periods During the Pandemic Applies to Labour Law

The Superior Labour Court (SLC), in a judgment on repetitive appeals (Topic 46), held that the suspension of limitation periods provided for in Law No. 14,010/2020 fully applies to employment relationships. The established thesis states that “the suspension of limitation periods provided for in Law No. 14,010/2020 applies to Labour Law, covering both the two-year and five-year limitation periods, and, for this purpose, the effective possibility of access to the Courts is irrelevant.” Accordingly, the 141-day period established by the Law, from 12 June 2020 to 30 October 2020, must be added to the calculation of both limitation periods. Source: SLC

Tax Incentives for Investments in Occupational Health and Safety

Bill No. 6,457/2025 has been introduced in the Chamber of Deputies, creating tax incentives for employers who invest in employee safety measures. The proposal allows companies taxed on actual profits to deduct from Income Tax twice the amount spent on compliance with occupational health and safety regulations, up to a limit of 10% of taxable profit in each financial year. The benefit also applies to expenses related to Regulatory Standard No. 1 (NR-1) of the Ministry of Labour and Employment, which addresses occupational risk management. Expenses that cannot be deducted in a given year due to the legal cap may be carried forward to the following two financial years. Source: Chamber of Deputies

Undue Compensation for Workplace Accident

The 6th Panel of the Regional Labou Court of Rio Grande do Sul (RLC RS) unanimously upheld a decision denying compensation for moral, material and aesthetic losses, as well as job tenure, to an employee who suffered an accident while attempting to remove a faulty fan for repair in the employer’s finishing department, falling from an aluminium ladder over two metres high. Although the impact resulted in an open fracture to his right arm and a residual impairment of 2.5% in his working capacity, the Court found that the employee admitted having received training and personal protective equipment but failed to follow the instructions to avoid dangerous situations and did not use the equipment properly. Source: RLC RS