Brazilian Supreme Court suspends the sanctioning effectiveness of NR-1 for 90 days.
The Brazilian Supreme Court has suspended, for 90 days, the application of fines and other sanctions related to psychosocial risk factors foreseen in Regulatory Standard No. 1 (NR-1). The preliminary injunction, dated June 25, 2026, was issued by Justice André Mendonça, rapporteur of the Argument of Non-Compliance with Fundamental Precept (ADPF) 1316, and granted. ad referendum From the Plenary. According to the decision, the objective is to open space for a conciliatory solution, conducted by the Court's Center for Consensual Conflict Resolution (NUSOL), aimed at providing greater objectivity to the rules, without reducing the level of protection that the norm seeks to ensure. We have gathered below the content, the basis, and the scope of the decision.
1. What did the Supreme Federal Court decide?
In partially granting the request made by the National Confederation of Educational Establishments (CONFENEN), the rapporteur suspended, for a period of 90 days, the effectiveness of items 1.5.3.1.4, 1.5.3.2.1, 1.5.4.4.2.1, 1.5.4.4.2.2 and 1.5.4.4.5.3 of NR-1, as amended by MTE Ordinance No. 1,419/2024, insofar as they serve as grounds for fines, penalties, punitive notices or other coercive measures related to psychosocial risk factors. The decision also determined the suspension of the effectiveness of any sanctions already applied based on these provisions while conciliation negotiations are ongoing, and forwarded the case file to NUSOL.
2. The origin of the controversy: MTE Ordinance No. 1,419/2024
NR-1 establishes the general guidelines for occupational safety and health. With the amendment introduced by MTE Ordinance No. 1,419/2024 in its item 1.5, it became mandatory to include, in Occupational Risk Management (GRO), alongside physical, chemical, and biological agents and ergonomic factors, the "psychosocial risk factors related to work". The validity of this requirement, initially scheduled for 2025, was extended to May 26, 2026 by MTE Ordinance No. 765/2025, which established an educational adaptation period. According to the applicant, the extension itself reveals the recognition, by the Public Authorities, of the technical and interpretative complexity of the matter.
3. Suspended devices
The suspension of the sanctioning effect covers five provisions of chapter 1.5 of NR-1, summarized as follows:
Device | Content (summary) |
1.5.3.1.4 | It includes work-related psychosocial risk factors in the range of risks to be covered by Occupational Risk Management (ORM). |
1.5.3.2.1 | It requires the organization to consider working conditions as defined in NR-17, including psychosocial risk factors. |
1.5.4.4.2.1 | It empowers the organization to select the assessment tools and techniques appropriate to the risk or circumstance being evaluated. |
1.5.4.4.2.2 | It requires a detailed document outlining the criteria for grading severity and probability, risk levels, and classification and decision-making criteria. |
1.5.4.4.5.3 | It stipulates that the evaluation should consider the demands of the work activity and the effectiveness of the prevention measures implemented. |
4. CONFENEN's arguments: five structural flaws
The applicant argued that the new wording of item 1.5 lacked the normative depth to justify sanctions, pointing out five flaws:
- Insufficiently closed normative concept — the inclusion of “psychosocial risk factors” would not be accompanied by a minimum definition in the binding text, which would open the door to undue expansion of the concept when the topic shifts from the preventive to the punitive field.
- Open reference to NR-17 — the standard would not stabilize, with a sufficient degree of certainty, the role of the Preliminary Ergonomic Assessment (PEA) and the exceptional nature of the Ergonomic Work Analysis (EWA).
- Methodological delegation without protection against retroactive sanctions. The organization chooses the assessment tools, but the standard would not say, in a general and clear way, when the method ceases to be sufficient.
- A mix between ergonomic assessment and punishment based on results. — there would be a lack of objective national parameters to assess the “effectiveness” of the measures in a scenario of inspection and enforcement.
- Attempt to supplement the binding text with non-binding materials. The Guide and Manual published by the Ministry of Labor and Employment would confirm, but not address, the lack of comprehensive regulations.
5. The manifestation of Public Power
The Presidency of the Republic and the Attorney General's Office argued against the claim. In summary, they maintained that the absence of a single methodology was a deliberate regulatory choice, aligned with international management models and the heterogeneity of work environments; that a closed and exhaustive conceptualization would lead to rigidity; that the system would be primarily composed of due diligence duties, without punishment for results; and that NR-1 does not require an "individualized clinical record," and the evaluation should not be based on individual clinical data of workers.
6. The basis for the preliminary injunction.
The rapporteur acknowledged the relevance of including psychosocial factors, described as a prevention tool built within a tripartite, equal system, in a context of growing concern for mental health. However, he noted that the Public Authority's arguments would only be valid if the provisions were primarily advisory in nature. As a criterion for conduct subject to sanction, the provision of open and subjective concepts, lacking clarity regarding expected conduct and applicable sanctions, was considered, in a preliminary assessment, contrary to the principles of legality, specificity, due process, and legal certainty.
The decision invoked a precedent from the Supreme Federal Court (ADI 7.031), according to which the normative power of the Administration does not authorize it to primarily innovate the legal order nor to create or apply sanctions not provided for by law. Based on these elements, the rapporteur recognized the fumus boni iuris and the periculum in mora, granting the precautionary suspension, linked to the attempt at conciliation.
7. Scope of the suspension and what remains in effect
The decision expressly delimits the scope of the measure. According to the rapporteur, the suspension does not revoke NR-1 nor does it eliminate the obligations stipulated therein: the general guidelines of the standard remain valid and must continue to be observed as standard Regarding conduct, during the 90-day period, labor inspectors remain competent to guide, recommend, and issue informative measures, with only the issuance of fines and sanctions based exclusively on the five suspended provisions being suspended. The decision also clarifies that the application of sanctions based on other regulations that equally protect the mental health of workers remains possible. Therefore, the management of psychosocial risks remains mandatory, with the suspension limited to the sanctioning dimension of the indicated provisions.
8. Next steps and timeline
According to the decision, the next steps in the process are as follows:
- Reconciliation at NUSOL, with an initial deadline of 90 days, to adapt the wording of the provisions to sufficient standards of objectivity and normative density;
- The case file has been returned to the rapporteur. at the end of the deadline, for further consideration of the matter;
- Referendum on the preliminary injunction by the Plenary., in a virtual session to be held between August 7 and 18, 2026;
- Summons from the Ministry of Labor to provide clarification on the methodology and criteria for inspecting NR-1 and NR-17.
Mazzucco & Mello This publication monitors the regulation of psychosocial risk factors in NR-1 and the developments of ADPF 1316, keeping clients and readers updated on the definitions of the Supreme Federal Court and their implications for occupational health and safety management. For guidance on this topic, speak with our labor team.
Article written by: Rafael Mello and Israel Cruz.