The Plenary of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) formed a majority this Monday (November 24th) to define the parameters for collecting the assistance contribution from non-unionized workers. The judgment, held in a virtual plenary session, analyzed appeals for clarification filed by the Attorney General's Office (PGR) against the 2023 decision (Topic 935).

The Court decided to modulate the effects of the ruling, establishing that the charge cannot be applied retroactively to the period between 2017 and 2023.

Below, we detail the main points established in the vote of the rapporteur, Minister Gilmar Mendes.

The main ruling concerns the period of validity of the collection. The Supreme Federal Court established that amounts relating to the period between 2017 and 2023 cannot be demanded from workers who are not union members.

The rationale is based on the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectation, taking into account the Court's jurisprudential shift:

• February 2017: The Supreme Federal Court (STF) had established a precedent that compulsory dues collection from non-union members was unconstitutional.
• September 2023: The Court changed its position, validating the collection of fees through collective bargaining, provided that the right to object is guaranteed.

Therefore, the requirement to contribute to this group is limited to the period after the decision of September 2023.

The decision reinforced that the validity of the charge is conditional upon guaranteeing the worker's right to object. The leading opinion highlighted two practical aspects for exercising this right:

• Prohibition of interference from third parties: Employers and third parties may not interfere with, encourage, or hinder the expression of the worker's will, whether to accept or refuse the contribution.
• Accessibility: The means for exercising opposition must be effective and accessible. The reporting Minister pointed out that the channels for refusal must be equivalent to the channels available for unionization/membership.

The Court added to its understanding that the amounts stipulated for the welfare contribution must observe criteria of reasonableness and compatibility with the economic capacity of the professional category.

According to the rapporteur's vote, the decision must be made transparently in an assembly, seeking a balance between the costs of union activity and the fundamental rights of workers, avoiding the setting of values that encourage mass opposition.

Minister André Mendonça agreed with the rapporteur regarding the non-retroactivity, but raised a reservation regarding the form of authorization. The Minister defended the need for "prior, express and individual" authorization to avoid automatic deductions, differing from the majority opinion that maintains the logic of the right to object.

The virtual trial, which officially ends this Tuesday (November 25th), consolidates the jurisprudence on union dues. The decision settles the controversy over liabilities for the period 2017-2023, exempting non-unionized workers from past charges, and establishes guidelines for setting future amounts in collective bargaining.