Mundie Advogados

On Friday (March 1st), the Federal Government edited a Provisory Measure (MP 873/2019) which states that union contributions can no longer be deducted directly from salary. The Provisory Measure requires that the Union provide a bank slip and forward to the employee′s residence or, in receipt of impossibility, for employer’s facility. If the employee has not previously consented with the payment, sending the bank slip has become prohibited.

The news rules are effective immediately, but it must be subject to the Congress’s approval by up to 120 days to become law, otherwise it would be only enforceable to rule situations that happened up to its term.

Since the labor reform entered into force in 2017, union contributions (i.e. annual contribution equal to employees’ one-day salary, among others which are  implemented by the Union)  are no longer compulsory. Employees need to confirm their willingness to contribute to the labor union, however employers could continue to deduct directly from the payroll and collect to the Union.

In recent months, several court rulings have cast doubt on whether the employee′s permission for salary deduction to cover the union′s contribution could be collective - approved through an Union meeting - or individual. Superior Labor Court (TST) had recently ruled that Unions could still require the deduction of contributions upon approval in a general meeting held by the Union and if there was no rejection by the employee upon procedures defined by the Union.

In light of this scenario, MP 873 was considered necessary to make even clearer that union contributions for all employees is the result of their prior and individual permission. The MP also intended to overcome the initiative of Union leaders to rename the union contribution as “union strengthening rate” or other names, as well as excluding the possibility of deductions from employees who do not permit so, and, finally, to revert the interpretation of the Labor Courts that permission for the deduction could be given collectively.

However, it seems that MP is far from closing the discussions. Union leaders across the country anticipated that the MP would lead to protests and a flood of legal actions. The National Confederation of Careers and Typical State Activities (Conacate), announced on Saturday (March 2) that it filed a legal action before the Federal Supreme Court (STF)  to  dispute the constitutional character of the MP, alleging that there was a violation of the fundamental right of the Union to implement contributions approved in  meetings held by the unions for this purpose.

Other unions are considering to restrict the access to labor rights usually negotiated via collective bargaining agreements, such as the annual salary increase and other benefits, only to employees who agreed with the payment of contributions.