In a recent decision, the STF suspended the processing of labor executions that discuss the inclusion, in the execution phase, of a company that is part of an economic group that did not participate in the knowledge process.

In labor proceedings, when the execution phase is reached and the main debtor does not have enough assets to pay the debt, judges often redirect the execution to another company that is part of the same group.

When the company joins as a defendant only in the enforcement phase, it does not take part in the taking of evidence or the trial of the case, but it is jointly and severally liable for the sentence imposed and may have its assets seized to pay the debt.

In such a situation, in order to lodge an appeal, the enforcement must be guaranteed by depositing the amount enforced.

The redirection of enforcement has a legal basis in art. 2, paragraph 2 of the Consolidation of Labor Laws, which defines an economic group for labor purposes.

This procedure has generated many appeals and a multiplication of divergent decisions, so the suspension aims to guarantee legal certainty until a final decision is handed down by the STF.

The Supreme Court had already recognized the general repercussion of the matter in 2022 and, in May 2023, ordered a nationwide suspension of the processing of all labor executions that deal with the issue. The decision was handed down in RE 1.387.795 by Justice Dias Toffoli.

In the trial, the STF will analyze whether a company that is part of the same economic group and did not participate in the knowledge phase can be included in the labor execution as jointly and severally liable.

This is because art. 513, paragraph 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that enforcement of the judgment cannot be promoted against the co-obligor or co-responsible party who did not participate in the knowledge phase. 

A não observância de tal regra ofenderia os princípios constitucionais da ampla defesa, do contraditório, do devido processo legal e, também a cláusula de reserva de plenário (art. 97 da CRFB/88 e Súmula Vinculante 10 do STF).

This is how the Supreme Court will settle the issue when it decides the merits.

Conclui-se, portanto, que o assunto vem gerando divergência nas decisões e o enfrentamento pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal trará estabilidade a jurisprudência trabalhista e, ao mesmo tempo, dará mais segurança as empresas que, não raras vezes, acabam sendo responsabilizadas por débitos que não deram causa.

By: Andréia Machado dos Reis

Labor Law | CPDMA Team