Recently, the case of a large tire manufacturer that was convicted of granting financial benefits and bonuses to employees who did not join a strike gained prominence. According to the decision, the claimant stated that “paying the bonus was an attempt to punish or discourage participation in strike movements, violating the right to strike guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.” The worker’s claim was accepted and his arguments were upheld by the Regional Labor Court of the 5th Region – Bahia, 8th Panel of the Superior Labor Court (TST) and by the Specialized Subsection I for Individual Disputes (SDI-1) of the TST.  

This decision highlights the rigidity of labor legislation regarding so-called anti-union practices, since the Federal Constitution guarantees workers the free exercise of the right to strike, without being subjected to any form of discrimination or retaliation by the employer. By financially encouraging non-participation in the strike movement, it was understood, in this case, that the company acted in disagreement with constitutional and legal principles. 

Practices that aim to interfere with, restrain or inhibit union activity and the right to strike are considered anti-union. These attitudes can lead to serious consequences, such as convictions for payment of compensation for collective moral damages and the application of administrative sanctions.  

Our office has extensive experience and is prepared to guide your company in decision-making and implementation of good labor practices and union relations.