An important decision recently issued by the Supreme Federal Court (STF), resulting from the work of the labor team at Cesar Peres Dulac Müller Advogados, once again highlighted the importance of adhering to the Court’s binding precedents in labor matters—especially regarding the legality of alternative hiring methods, such as the provision of services by a legal entity, a practice known as pejotização.

The decision, authored by Justice Alexandre de Moraes, granted a Constitutional Complaint filed by a dairy products company represented by the law firm, seeking the annulment of a Labor Court ruling that had recognized an employment relationship between the company and a professional hired to perform merchandising activities at points of sale. The labor lawsuit, upheld in both the first and second instances, disregarded the civil contract signed between the parties and imposed on the company obligations typical of an employment relationship.

In other words, although there was a contract signed between companies and the payments were made through the issuance of invoices, the Labor Court understood that, in practice, there was an employment relationship between the outsourced worker and the contracting company. When ruling on the case, the STF concluded that this interpretation contradicted previous decisions by the Court itself, which recognize the legality of this type of arrangement, provided that formal requirements and good faith between the parties are respected.

When analyzing the case, the STF reaffirmed the arguments established in rulings such as ADPF 324 and Theme 725 of General Repercussion (RE 958.252), consolidating the understanding that Brazilian legislation allows for work relationships beyond the employment model governed by the CLT. Thus, the Court once again recognized the validity of outsourcing core activities and the freedom of companies to organize their economic activity according to the principles of free enterprise and free competition. In this specific case, it was demonstrated that the hiring complied with legal requirements and that payments were made through invoices, with variable compensation based on the number of visits and the scope of the activities.

The Constitutional Complaint was prepared by attorney Marina Pinto, a member of CPDMA’s labor law team, who works on complex and recurring cases in the corporate environment. A graduate of the Catholic University of Pelotas, with a postgraduate degree in Labor Law and Procedure, Marina personally led the legal strategy in this case, basing her arguments on the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions.

In addition to reaffirming the already established understanding, the decision also highlights a necessary shift: the active pursuit of legal measures capable of ensuring contractual security in business relations. The STF has reiterated that the legal framework does not impose a single form of hiring, guaranteeing companies the freedom—based on the principles of free enterprise and free competition—to structure their activities through different models of work organization. The imposition of an employment relationship when there are valid civil contracts contradicts this understanding and violates the binding precedents of the Supreme Court. However, there remains a pattern of repeated non-compliance with these rulings by the Labor Court, which continues to disregard the legitimacy of valid contracts and impose employment relationships. In this context, the use of the Constitutional Complaint plays a key role in preserving what has already been decided under concentrated constitutional review, serving as a legitimate and effective tool to curb judicial decisions that at times ignore the STF’s consolidated case law.

Cases like this demonstrate the importance of companies—regardless of their size or industry—having specialized legal counsel, prepared to face challenges that go beyond the labor court level and require technical articulation before higher courts.

Labor Law | CPDMA Team