At least seven members of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) have already denied employment relationships between workers and ride-hailing or delivery app platforms in either single-judge or panel decisions. These positions indicate that the companies may prevail in the dispute, which will be analyzed in its general repercussions\u2014as the justices decided in a judgment concluded Friday in the Virtual Plenary.<\/p>\n
In these decisions, generally issued in complaints, the justices overturned Labor Court rulings or decisions that had recognized the employment relationship. They argued that this violated Supreme Court case law in similar cases, such as the one that validated outsourcing in all stages of the production process, whether as a means or an end (ADPF 324).<\/p>\n
Justices Gilmar Mendes, Cristiano Zanin, Alexandre de Moraes, Luiz Fux, Nunes Marques, and Dias Toffoli have already ruled against the employment relationship in single-judge decisions. Justice C\u00e1rmen L\u00facia also followed suit, but in a collegiate decision. She supported the rapporteur in a 1st Panel session that denied a driver's employment relationship with Cabify, which no longer operates in Brazil (Rcl 64018).<\/p>\n
Justice Nunes Marques, when overturning a labor decision against the delivery app Moovery, found that "no concrete evidence was provided to indicate an abusive contracting exercise with the intent to defraud the existence of an employment relationship." Thus, he stated, "the contested decision is at odds with the guidance of this Court established in the ruling on ADPF 324" (RCL 60741).<\/p>\n
In total, 15 complaints on the topic were located between July 2023 and February of this year, mapped by the Research and Extension Center "Work beyond Labor Law" at the University of S\u00e3o Paulo (USP), in partnership with the National Association of Labor Court Judges (Anamatra). The study was shared exclusively with Valor.<\/p>\n
Guilherme Guimar\u00e3es Feliciano, coordinator of the research center and judge of the 1st Labor Court of Taubat\u00e9, S\u00e3o Paulo, acknowledges that the Supreme Federal Court's decisions have so far been unfavorable to drivers and delivery personnel, but nothing prevents a change in understanding. He argues that, in the general repercussions, the outsourcing theory should not be applied.<\/p>\n
– Clarissa Lehmen \u201cTenho d\u00favidas da ader\u00eancia estrita do julgado [na ADPF 324] nos casos das plataformas, porque elas n\u00e3o s\u00e3o meras intermediadoras entre consumidor e prestador de servi\u00e7o. Isso tem ca\u00eddo por terra no mundo inteiro\u201d, afirma ele, acrescentando que o ideal seria o Supremo, em caso de negar o v\u00ednculo de emprego, n\u00e3o afastar a compet\u00eancia da Justi\u00e7a do Trabalho para analisar fatos e provas em casos concretos em que possa existir fraude da rela\u00e7\u00e3o contratual, por ferir o artigo 9\u00ba da Consolida\u00e7\u00e3o das Leis do Trabalho (CLT).<\/p>\n
While the Supreme Federal Court (STF) has yet to issue a final ruling on the matter, the lower and lower courts of the Labor Court have sided with the companies. Employment relationships have been recognized in only 10.26% of the cases judged (2,653), according to a survey by the jurimetrics firm Data Lawyer, released exclusively to Valor. Currently, there are 25,800 pending cases, with a total value of R$3.36 billion.<\/p>\n
Decisions that admit all workers' requests (fully admissible) represent only 1% (258) of the total. These cases are added to those that are partially admissible, which so far amount to 9.26% (2,395). Those that deny the employment relationship (7,132) represent 27.69% of the total. 29.94% (5,182) are still pending judgment.<\/p>\n
The number of settlements in lawsuits is high: in 29.55% of cases (7,639), negotiations were reached between the company and the driver or delivery person. In the case that reached the Supreme Federal Court (STF) and was heard last week to determine the overall repercussions, Uber attempted to negotiate, but the Superior Labor Court (TST) did not approve it. The understanding was that the company was, in fact, seeking to avoid creating unfavorable precedent.<\/p>\n
At the Superior Labor Court (TST), according to the agency's survey, 60% of cases involving platforms brought before the justices between 2019 and February 2024 involve the recognition of employment relationships with workers. All panels have already expressed their views, but the opinions are evenly divided: while the 1st, 4th, 5th, 7th, and 8th panels denied employment relationships, the 2nd, 3rd, 6th, and 8th panels recognized them.<\/p>\n
De acordo com o advogado que assessora a Cabify e outros aplicativos no STF, Daniel Chiode, do Chiode Minicucci Advogados | Littler, o TST tende a reconhecer o v\u00ednculo na Se\u00e7\u00e3o de Disss\u00eddios Individuais -1 (SDI-1). \u201cPor isso passamos a adotar a estrat\u00e9gia de levar a discuss\u00e3o diretamente para o Supremo, em reclama\u00e7\u00f5es. E agora a Uber resolveu entrar com o recurso extraordin\u00e1rio para que seja decidido em repercuss\u00e3o geral e seja adotado em todos os processos\u201d, diz. No STF, afirma Chiode, j\u00e1 existe uma tend\u00eancia a favor das plataformas. \u201cEssas decis\u00f5es decorrem do pr\u00f3prio entendimento j\u00e1 consolidado do STF em reconhecer outras formas de contrata\u00e7\u00e3o, baseadas na legisla\u00e7\u00e3o civil. \u00c9 preciso admitir que o trabalhador de 1942 [\u00e9poca da edi\u00e7\u00e3o da CLT] \u00e9 muito diferente do de 2024\u201d, afirma. A melhor forma de solucionar esse impasse, segundo o advogado, seria a elabora\u00e7\u00e3o de uma lei que constru\u00edsse um di\u00e1logo entre as partes. Ainda que exista uma norma, acrescenta, esse julgamento no STF pode servir de par\u00e2metro. Ele lembra que o acordo costurado com o governo trata apenas de motoristas de aplicativo – n\u00e3o fala dos entregadores. Segundo o advogado Eymard Loguercio, do LBS Advogados, que assessora trabalhadores, estamos diante de um paradoxo, que poder\u00e1 ser melhor enfrentado pelo STF na repercuss\u00e3o geral. \u201cNas reclama\u00e7\u00f5es, os ministros aplicam precedentes gen\u00e9ricos sobre terceiriza\u00e7\u00e3o e outras formas jur\u00eddicas de trabalho que foram reguladas\u201d, diz ele, acrescentando que n\u00e3o caberia aplicar o precedente de terceiriza\u00e7\u00e3o. \u201cAqui se trata de modelos de neg\u00f3cios que pretendem fugir de suas responsabilidades sociais.\u201d Para Clarissa Lehmen, do escrit\u00f3rio Trench Rossi Watanabe, mesmo com a decis\u00e3o do STF, o importante seria uma regulamenta\u00e7\u00e3o para a categoria pelo Congresso. \u201cEm v\u00e1rios lugares do mundo, a regulamenta\u00e7\u00e3o t\u00eam buscado dar amparo com a prote\u00e7\u00e3o da sa\u00fade do trabalhador e estabelecer um seguro acidente\u201d, diz. Em nota, a Associa\u00e7\u00e3o Brasileira de Mobilidade e Tecnologia (Amobitec), admitida como parte interessada na a\u00e7\u00e3o da Uber em repercuss\u00e3o geral, diz que o entendimento contra o v\u00ednculo de emprego \u201cvem sendo manifestado h\u00e1 anos por outras inst\u00e2ncias do Poder Judici\u00e1rio, que firmaram jurisprud\u00eancia consistente sobre a rela\u00e7\u00e3o dos parceiros com os aplicativos\u201d. Cita, como exemplo, julgados do STJ, TST e STF. E acrescenta que atua por uma regulamenta\u00e7\u00e3o para a categoria.<\/p>\n
Article originally published on March 4, 2024 in Folha de S. Paulo.<\/em><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Pelo menos sete integrantes do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) j\u00e1 negaram v\u00ednculo de emprego entre trabalhadores e plataformas de aplicativos de transporte ou entrega em decis\u00f5es monocr\u00e1ticas (de um s\u00f3 ministro) ou de turma. Os posicionamentos s\u00e3o um indicativo de que as empresas podem vencer a discuss\u00e3o, que ser\u00e1 analisada em repercuss\u00e3o geral – como […]<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":6122,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[116],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6121","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-na-midia"],"acf":[],"featured_image_src":{"landsacpe":["https:\/\/chiode.com.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/ff01914ea0c952d2ed75983627e46b02-600x445.png",600,445,true],"list":["https:\/\/chiode.com.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/ff01914ea0c952d2ed75983627e46b02-463x348.png",463,348,true],"medium":["https:\/\/chiode.com.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/ff01914ea0c952d2ed75983627e46b02-300x300.png",300,300,true],"full":["https:\/\/chiode.com.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/ff01914ea0c952d2ed75983627e46b02.png",600,600,false]},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/chiode.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6121","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/chiode.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/chiode.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chiode.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chiode.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6121"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/chiode.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6121\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6218,"href":"https:\/\/chiode.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6121\/revisions\/6218"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chiode.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6122"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/chiode.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6121"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chiode.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6121"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chiode.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6121"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}