The labor reform should be applied to all ongoing employment contracts, but only to events that occurred after the new law came into effect.

This was the understanding reached on November 25th by the Full Court of the Superior Labor Court (TST). The decision brings relief to the parties involved in labor relations, who will have greater legal certainty regarding the application of the rules resulting from the reform. In practice, even if the employment contract began before November 11, 2017 (the effective date of the Labor Reform), events occurring after that date are subject to the new legislation.

One example of significant divergence in case law concerned the payment of in itinere hours (time a worker spends commuting between their residence and workplace, and vice versa). According to the new wording of Article 58, §2 of the CLT (Consolidation of Labor Laws), the commuting period will no longer be counted as working hours, as the worker is not at the employer's disposal.

The exemption from remuneration for employees for commuting time, according to the TST (Superior Labor Court) ruling, should be applied not only to employment contracts initiated after the labor reform, but also to contracts that began before November 2017, with respect to the commuting period from that date onwards.

The same logic applies to the 15-minute rest period previously provided for women before the start of overtime. This rest period was eliminated with the labor reform, and is no longer required of all female employees from November 11, 2017 onwards, even those who began their employment before the reform.

The theme established by the TST (Superior Labor Court), through the judgment of the IRR (Incident of Repetitive Appeals), represents an important milestone in the interpretation of Law 13.467/2017 to employment contracts already in progress when the aforementioned law came into effect, as it is mandatory throughout the Labor Courts due to its binding nature, generating greater legal certainty and uniformity of judicial decisions.

Process: Repetitive Appeals (IRR) in case 528-80.2018.5.14.000

By Victoria La Maison