03/12/2025
The recent decision by the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) on the constitutionality of the employees’ contributions to Unions, issued when the Court granted the Prosecutor General’s (PGR) motion for clarification, represents a crucial refinement of the original ruling. The outcome can be viewed as an attempt by the Judiciary to strike a delicate balance between the need to fund unions—significantly weakened after the end of the mandatory union tax in 2017—and the fundamental protection of workers’ individual rights, especially those who are not union members. The STF sought to provide greater legal certainty and effectiveness to the application of the contribution, reducing the risks of abuse and respecting the legitimate expectations of workers who, prior to the change in jurisprudence, understood that charging non-union members was unconstitutional.
To achieve this, the Court incorporated three essential conditions: a prohibition on retroactive charges, a ban on third-party interference with the right to object, and a requirement that the fee be reasonable. These specifications emerged from the need to curb abusive practices that the earlier, more succinct ruling left room for. The prohibition on retroactivity, for example, prevents unions from attempting to collect amounts for the period between 2017 and 2023, when the prevailing understanding was that such charges were unconstitutional. In addition, the emphasis on preventing interference aims to address practices that hindered or emptied the right to object—such as requiring in-person attendance in long lines, setting excessively short deadlines, or relying on unstable electronic systems—reducing the worker’s guarantee to a mere formality.
Despite the progress in introducing safeguards, it is important to note that some elements of the decision remain open-ended and may generate future disputes, possibly requiring further judicial intervention. The ruling states that workers’ objections must be guaranteed through “accessible and effective” means, equivalent to those used for union membership, but the precise definition of those means—and of what constitutes undue “interference”—may prompt controversy. Likewise, the concept of a “reasonable” fee is inherently subjective. Although the Court requires that the amount be set transparently and democratically, based on the union’s actual needs and compatible with the economic capacity of the category, the practical challenge will lie in supervising and substantiating compliance with these criteria.
The STF’s decision must also be viewed in light of the 2017 Labor Reform (Law No. 13,467/2017). On one hand, the reform expanded unions’ normative power by giving precedence to negotiated terms over the law (Article 611-A of the Labor Code). On the other hand, it eliminated their main funding source—the mandatory union tax—causing a financial collapse within union structures. This duality created a dangerous imbalance: unions were given greater responsibility and negotiating power while being stripped of much of their structural and financial capacity. By validating the contribution, the STF indirectly seeks to restore that lost balance, ensuring that unions can effectively counterbalance employers’ economic power—an essential element for the quality and effectiveness of collective bargaining in the country.
Ultimately, the decision is a step toward union sustainability, but one paired with the responsibility of safeguarding individual freedom. However, many experts view the solution adopted by the STF as a patch for a system in need of deeper structural reform. The coexistence of a single-union model (one union per category and territorial base) with funding derived from an union contribution (even with a right to object) may perpetuate organizations that do not truly represent their members. The ongoing debate over ending the single-union structure and adopting union pluralism—where funding would stem from voluntary association and from a union’s ability to deliver real value to its members—remains central to the development of a modern, representative, and competitive union system in Brazil.
Authored by: Fabio Chong de Lima
