Labour & Employment | Edition 27

07.05.2026

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

Non-routine call-ins. Work schedule. No existential damages recognized.

The 7th Panel of the Regional Labor Court of the 4th Region denied a claim for compensation for existential damages filed by a supermarket butcher. The panel held that being called to work outside the regular schedule, in itself, does not prevent the employee from pursuing personal projects or maintaining social life. In its defense, the company denied any irregularities and presented witness evidence indicating that work schedules were disclosed in advance and that any changes were previously communicated upon consultation with the employee. It was further established that the employee was free to refuse such call-ins without any penalties or prejudice. Source: TRT-4

Freedom of vote. Company held liable. Electoral harassment.

The Labor Court ordered a furniture company to pay BRL 400,000 in collective moral damages due to electoral harassment against its employees. The public civil action was filed by the Labor Prosecution Office (MPT), alleging that in 2022 the company held a politically biased meeting, pressuring employees to support a specific presidential candidate. In its defense, the company denied the allegations and emphasized that police investigations did not result in any indictment due to lack of evidence. However, the court found the conduct unlawful, characterizing it as undue interference with employees’ freedom of vote. The case has been referred to the Superior Labor Court for review of the appeal. Source: TRT-3

Apprenticeship agreement. Maximum duration.

The Chamber of Deputies approved Bill No. 6,461/2019, which establishes the Apprentice Statute and sets a maximum duration of two years for apprenticeship agreements, prohibiting indefinite-term hiring under this modality. Exceptionally, for people with disabilities, longer terms are allowed, provided they are duly justified based on specific conditions. For apprentices enrolled in technical secondary education programs, the duration may be extended to up to three years when required to comply with curriculum guidelines. Source: Chamber of Deputies

Intermittent contract. Reclassification.

The 1st Panel of the Regional Labor Court of the 21st Region recognized an open-ended employment relationship for a construction worker, dismissing the validity of the intermittent contract. The panel found that the requirements of this modality were not met, particularly the alternation between working and inactive periods. Although the company argued that months without payment demonstrated intermittency, it failed to provide evidence of call-ins or discontinuity of services. On the contrary, documents showed payments almost every month, evidencing habituality. Based on the primacy of reality principle, the intermittent contract was reclassified, with the company ordered to pay full termination entitlements and rectify employment records. Source: TRT-21

Simulation of labor claim. Agreement annulled.

The Specialized Section II on Individual Disputes (SDI-2) of the Superior Labor Court declared null an agreement executed between a lawyer and a company for which she had provided services, due to indications of fraud and simulated litigation. In the original claim, the professional sought recognition of an employment relationship and payment of approximately BRL 660,800, but settled for BRL 300,000 without the company presenting a defense. The breach of the agreement led to enforcement proceedings, at which point the Labor Prosecution Office filed a rescissory action. The reporting Justice highlighted atypical circumstances, including continued service provision after the alleged termination, the high number of claims against the company, and the contradictory conduct of the defendant, which remained inactive in the original case but acted to preserve the agreement, indicating collusion between the parties. Source: TST

Compensation for aesthetic damage. Workplace accident.

The 5th Panel of the Regional Labor Court of the 2nd Region upheld the conviction of a company to pay compensation for aesthetic damage to an employee who suffered a workplace accident. The panel held that injuries resulting in permanent alteration of physical appearance, such as visible scars, justify independent compensation. In this case, the employee suffered a forearm injury that resulted in a permanent scar, deemed sufficient to characterize aesthetic damage, regardless of proof of psychological harm. Source: TRT-2

Threat with firearm. Compensation denied.

The 8th Chamber of the Regional Labor Court of the 15th Region denied a claim for moral damages filed by a salesperson who alleged to be threatened by an armed customer. The panel concluded that the allegation was not proven, as witnesses reported only suspicious behavior, without confirming an actual threat or the use of a firearm. Due to insufficient evidence, the claim was dismissed. Source: TRT-15

Nature of meal allowance. Non-salary classification.

The 3rd Panel of the Regional Labor Court of the 9th Region ruled that the meal allowance paid to a bank employee has an indemnity nature as of the enactment of Law No. 13,467/2017, excluding its integration into salary and related labor entitlements. Initially, the benefit had been deemed salary-based under the acquired rights doctrine. However, upon reconsideration, the panel aligned its decision with the Superior Labor Court’s precedent (Topic 23), which establishes that the Labour Reform applies immediately to ongoing contracts. Accordingly, the benefit has been classified as indemnity-based since November 11, 2017. Source: TRT-9