TST consolidates 12 binding legal principles.

The Full Bench of the Superior Labor Court (TST) consolidated its legal understanding on 12 topics, reaffirming its jurisprudence through the repetitive appeals procedure. The issues addressed were already settled, without divergence between the Panels and the Specialized Subsection I for Individual Labor Disputes (SDI-1), which allowed the formulation of binding theses.

Below, we highlight the main legal theses established, which will now guide the actions of regional courts and other labor instances.

1- Topic 119 –

“Reasonable and objective doubt about the date of the beginning of pregnancy and its contemporaneity with the employment contract does not preclude job security for pregnant women. RR-0000321-55.2024.5.08.0128”.

This topic reaffirms the understanding that had already been repeatedly adopted by labor courts. Although there is no complete certainty regarding the exact date of conception and its coincidence with the commencement of the employment contract, legal protection for pregnant workers prevails, guaranteeing them the temporary job security ensured by Article 10, item II, subparagraph “b”, of the Transitional Constitutional Provisions Act (ADCT).

The Superior Labor Court (TST) reinforces the protective principle of Labor Law, in which reasonable doubt cannot be interpreted against the employee, aiming to safeguard not only the employment relationship but also the health and well-being of the pregnant woman and the unborn child.

2- Topic 120 –

“The fine under Article 467 of the CLT is not due in the case of judicial recognition of an employment relationship when the nature of the legal relationship is challenged in defense.”

Regarding the application of the fine under Article 467 of the CLT, there was already an established understanding. When the employment relationship is denied in the defense and only recognized by judicial decision, it is not possible to demand from the employer the advance payment of severance pay—precisely because the very existence of the employment relationship was being questioned. Thus, there are no “undisputed” amounts to be paid immediately.

3- Topic 121 –

“The meal allowance does not have a salary nature when the employee contributes to the cost, regardless of the value of their co-participation.”

The discussion about the nature of the meal allowance was also a much-debated point in labor courts, even with a settled understanding.

The doubt was whether the allowance would (or would not) have a salary nature. However, it was settled that, when the employee contributes to the cost, the aforementioned allowance will not have a salary nature.

4- Topic 122 –

“The absence of presentation of work hour records by the domestic employer generates a relative presumption of veracity of the work hours alleged in the initial petition, which can be refuted by evidence to the contrary.”

Another constantly discussed topic is the method of recording the work hours of domestic employees. Much debate surrounded the best way to do this control, since, in most cases, employers are not present in the home to monitor the execution of the work hours. Therefore, many domestic employers began to adopt manual control, specific applications, and written agreements with pre-fixed working hours, when the working hours are stable.

With this consolidated understanding, the importance of effectively recording the working hours of domestic employees in a way that reflects reality is reinforced. This is because, in case of legal questioning, it will be up to the employer to prove the hours actually worked, under penalty of presumption in favor of the worker.

5- Topic 125 –

“For the purposes of the provisional job security guarantee provided for in Article 118 of Law 8.213/1991, it is not necessary for the employee to be absent for a period exceeding 15 days or to receive accident-related sick pay, provided that, after the termination of the employment contract, the causal or contributory link between the occupational disease and the activities performed during the employment relationship is recognized.”

Another topic widely debated in Labor Courts concerns job security in cases of occupational disease.

The ruling establishes the understanding that the right to temporary job security is not conditional upon receiving accident-related sick pay (type B91), but rather upon proof that the worker’s illness is related, even partially, to working conditions.

This is yet another issue that follows the protective principle, recognizing that the existence of a causal or contributing causal link to work is sufficient to guarantee job security for 12 months after the termination of the contract.