The Federal Supreme Court unanimously decided last Tuesday (25) to set limits on workers’ welfare contributions to unions. But despite the success of this measure, doubts remain about how to guarantee the right to dissent for those who do not want to pay the price.
The issue reached the country’s highest court in 2016, through a lawsuit filed by a union in Paraná. In 2017, the Supreme Court ruled that charging the assistance contribution – a fee used to fund negotiations over salary adjustments and other benefits with employers, the value of which is agreed in a collective agreement – was unconstitutional.
In the same year, labor reform abolished the union tax, which all workers, whether unionized or not, had been obligated to pay since the era of Getúlio Vargas. It is estimated that with this change, the collection of this mandatory tax fell from R$4 billion annually to a few hundred million.
Subsequently, the union from Paraná filed an appeal, and in 2023, the STF reversed its decision, authorizing the contribution – as long as it was determined at a meeting, did not exceed 1% of the employee’s income and that the right to object was reserved.
How did you notice this? BoundSuch a decision entails the risk that workers will face obstacles in exercising this right. This is what happened with many cases of abusive practices.
A union in São Paulo imposed a fee of 12% per year on the value of the salary or paid a fee of R$150 to anyone who objected; Another in the same state collected payments for 2018.
Workers complained of very short deadlines for submitting an exemption application, long waiting lines, rejection of scanned documents, and requirements to hand over a handwritten letter.
Therefore, the Public Prosecutor’s Office filed a request for clarification so that the STF could complete its decision for 2023. It was these requests from the PGR that the court has now accepted.
It is prohibited to collect the assistance contribution retroactively in relation to the period during which the STF maintained its unconstitutionality and the interference of third parties in the free exercise of the right to object. The fee must be reasonable and compatible with the economic capacity of the category.
However, it remains unclear what constitutes interference with the opposition and how this right should be exercised.
In June, the House of Representatives approved a draft law that would facilitate requesting an exemption. This can be done through the Gov.br portal, through digital platforms offered by unions, requests from approved private companies or even via email.
The bill goes to the Senate. The House of Representatives is expected to approve legislation ensuring the protection of non-unionized workers from unjustified fees.
Editorials@grupofolha.com.br