segunda-feira, 10 de junho de 2019

A Greve na educação de MT sob o olhar da Organização Internacional do Trabalho - OIT



O presente texto tem por objeto a prática de conduta anti-sindical por parte do Estado Mato Grosso, ente da República Federativa do Brasil quando da deflagração de greve no setor da educação em que houve ameaça de prática atentatória liberdade sindical consubstanciada em ato assinado pelo Procurador Geral do Estado de Mato Grosso em que se impõe como dever da Administração: I) efetuar o “corte de pontos” dos servidores grevistas e o consequente desconto, em folha de pagamento, dos valores correspondentes aos vencimentos e vantagens dos dias de falta ao serviço, sem que houvesse até então qualquer decisão de órgão autônomo quanto a ilegitimidade da paralisação; II) destituição dos ocupantes dos cargos em comissão de livre nomeação que aderirem ao movimento grevista; III) instauração de processo administrativo disciplinar para a apuração de eventuais faltas funcionais.

A greve dos servidores foi deflagrada em razão de decisão legitima e soberana tomada em Assembleia Geral da categoria devidamente convocada para essa finalidade, e houve a devida comunicação da deflagração.

Tal decisão foi tomada com base na autonomia sindical obedecendo rigorosamente o que determina o Estatuto da Entidade, conforme se comprova através das Atas das Assembleias, com a seguinte pauta de reivindicações: I) aplicação de aumento salarial previsto na Lei Complementar n.º 510/2013; II) política salarial sem defasagem inflacionária com prática da Revisão Geral Anual -  RGA instituída pela Lei Ordinária n.º  10.572/17.

A entidade Sindical, buscando defender a sua autonomia organizativa, ressalta que: 1º) a greve foi deflagrada por decisão da categoria em assembleia regularmente convocada, conforme o Estatuto da entidade (Art.3º  Art.4º - Lei n.º 7.783/89); 2º) não constitui abusiva a greve que tenha por finalidade precípua reinvindicação já compromissa pela Administração e não cumprida (art.14 - Lei n.º 7.783/89).

Não há meio administrativo ou judicial para que seja cumprido o que determina as Convenções 98 e 151 da Organização Internacional do Trabalho – OIT, das quais o Brasil é signatário, bem como as observações já realizadas pelo Comitê de Liberdade Sindical e tão pouco o Comitê de Peritos, já que:

I) o Estado de Mato Grosso está sujeitando os acordos de revisão e aumento salarial estabelecidos em Lei à política financeira e econômica de gastos intrinsicamente relacionados a própria discricionariedade dos gestores públicos, política essa atrelada a (in)gerência do Banco Mundial, mesmo que considerando erroneamente os dados para tanto, com aval do próprio Supremo Tribunal Federal que está a implementar contraditórios precedentes quanto a não necessidade de cumprimento de direitos previstos em Lei em razão da suposta “insustentabilidade fiscal” do Estado de Mato Grosso, não atendendo assim as observações já realizadas pelo Comitê de Liberdade Sindical e tão pouco o Comitê de Peritos, conforme: Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)[1]; Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)[2].;

II) já deveria haver Lei em específico no País que regulamente o direito a greve dos servidores públicos, o que se tem é uma conjunção de decisões judiciais do Supremo Tribunal Federal que impõe por analogia as legislações do setor privado no que concerne as obrigações legais aos Sindicatos e não trata igualmente os respectivos direitos nestas mesmas legislações, não atendendo assim as Convenções 98 e 151 da Organização Internacional do Trabalho – OIT, já ratificadas pelo Brasil, conforme será tratado;

A Organização Internacional do Trabalho ainda não assegurar em Convenção o direito a greve, o Pacto Internacional sobre Direitos Econômicos, Sociais e Culturais assim o assegura na alínea d) do item 1 e também no item 2), vejamos, ipisis literis:

“1. Os Estados Partes do presente Pacto comprometem-se a garantir: d) O direito de greve, exercido de conformidade com as leis de cada país. (...) 2. O presente artigo não impedirá que se submeta a restrições legais o exercício desses direitos pelos membros das forças armadas, da política ou da administração pública.”

O ato em questão descumpre a Lei do Brasil, pois ela determina no parágrafo 1º do artigo 6º da Lei n.º 7.783/89 que: “Em nenhuma hipótese, os meios adotados por empregados e empregadores poderão violar ou constranger os direitos e garantias fundamentais de outrem.”
Também em virtude da ratificação da Convenção Relativa as relações de trabalho na função pública, 1978, a de número 151, foi incorporada ao ordenamento jurídico pátrio brasileiro, a proteção quanto ao ato da Administração Pública em intentar prejudicar o servidor público em razão de participação de atividade da sua respectiva organização sindical, vejamos:

“ARTIGO 4
1 - Os trabalhadores da função pública devem beneficiar de uma protecção adequada contra todos os actos de discriminação que acarretem violação da liberdade sindical em matéria de trabalho.
2 - Essa protecção deve, designadamente, aplicar-se no que respeita aos actos que tenham por fim: (...) b) Despedir um trabalhador da função pública ou prejudicá-lo por quaisquer outros meios, devido à sua filiação numa organização de trabalhadores da função pública ou à sua participação nas actividades normais dessa organização.”

O presente Comitê ao longo de sua respeitada história tem reiterado a recomendação de que os entes nacionais respeitem o direito a liberdade sindical, sobretudo o direito a greve, vejamos:

“O Comitê sempre reconheceu o direito de greve como um direito legítimo a que podem recorrer os trabalhadores e suas organizações em defesa de seus interesses econômicos e sociais.” (Recompilação de 2006, parágrafo 521).

“O Direito de greve dos trabalhadores e de suas organizações constitui um dos meios essenciais de que dispõem para promover e defender os seus interesses profissionais” (Recompilação de 2006, parágrafo 522).

“Ninguém deve ser penalizado por estar realizando ou por tentar realizar uma greve legitima” (Recompilação de 2006, parágrafo 660).

A Comissão de Peritos já definiu pela aplicabilidade da Convenção 98 em relação aos fatos atinentes, pois os presentes trabalhadores do setor público “não atuam como órgão do poder público”[3].

A Convenção 98 que trata do Direito de Sindicalização e de Negociação Coletiva, foi aprovada no Brasil pelo Decreto Legislativo n.º 49/52 e promulgada pelo Decreto 33.196/53, estabelece que:

Art. 1 — 1. Os trabalhadores deverão gozar de proteção adequada contra quaisquer atos atentatórios à liberdade sindical em matéria de emprego.
2. Tal proteção deverá, particularmente, aplicar-se a atos destinados a:
b) dispensar um trabalhador ou prejudicá-lo, por qualquer modo, em virtude de sua filiação a um sindicato ou de sua participação em atividades sindicais, fora das horas de trabalho ou com o consentimento do empregador, durante as mesmas horas.

Tem sido observada a inaplicabilidade no setor público no Brasil em diversas circunstâncias, conforme os relatos contidos nas seguintes recentes observações: I) Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)[4]; II) Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)[5].

III) deveria haver Lei em específico no País que regulamente a definição de prática anti-sindical, havendo, portanto, maximização da insegurança jurídica e proporcionando uma total discricionariedade aos Administradores Públicos, não atendendo assim as observações já realizadas pelo Comitê de Liberdade Sindical e tão pouco o Comitê de Peritos, conforme conforme as seguintes observações e relatórios: I) Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)[6] ; II) Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)[7]; III) Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)[8] ; IV) Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)[9].




[1] Subjection of collective agreements to financial and economic policy. The Committee recalls that for several years it has been referring to the need to repeal section 623 of the CLT, under the terms of which provisions of an agreement or accord that are in conflict with the standards governing the Government’s economic and financial policy or the wage policy that is in force shall be declared null and void. The Committee has also been requesting the Government to take measures to amend Act No. 10192, of February 2001, issuing additional measures under the Plan Real, section 13 of which provides that automatic price index-related wage increases or adjustments may not be included in agreements, accords or dissidios coletivos. In this regard, the Committee notes that: (i) in its 2014 observations, the ITUC indicated that these provisions are used to impose restrictions on the collective bargaining of wages in public and mixed enterprises; (ii) the Government indicates that restrictions on the scope of collective agreements are established on an exceptional basis, and principally in the context of the provision of public services; and (iii) in this context, the Government adds that the constitutional protection of the general interest may require the financial clauses of collective agreements not to prejudice the wage balance on the market or price levels in the national economy. In this regard, emphasizing that Article 4 of the Convention requires the promotion of free and voluntary collective bargaining, the Committee recalls that: (i) the public authorities may establish machinery for discussion and the exchange of views to encourage the parties to collective bargaining to take voluntarily into account considerations relating to the Government’s economic and social policy and the protection of the public interest; and (ii) restrictions on collective bargaining in relation to economic matters should only be possible in exceptional circumstances, that is in the case of serious and insurmountable difficulties in preserving jobs and the continuity of enterprises and institutions. The Committee, therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation as indicated above and to provide information in its next report on any measures adopted in this regard.


[2] The Committee notes the Government’s report.
The Committee recalls that in its previous observation it noted the comments from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), now the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), referring to the exclusion of collective bargaining in subcontracting enterprises; the imposition of court awards in collective bargaining at the request of a single party; the dismissal of trade union leaders in violation of their trade union immunity; the formulation of blacklists; the murder of leaders of rural workers’ organizations and one trade unionist in the footwear sector. In this respect, the Committee notes that the Government: (1) states that the national legislation does not prevent workers in subcontracting enterprises from forming trade unions and, once registration has been obtained from the Ministry of Labour and Employment, they can engage in collective bargaining. Numerous service enterprise trade unions exist in the country, including those which provide services by means of subcontracting; (2) states that, by virtue of Constitutional Amendment No. 45 of 2004, the agreement of both parties is required for resorting to “dissidio coletivo” (judicial arbitration); and (3) refers to the legislative provisions which afford protection to unionized workers. The Committee observes that the Government has not supplied any information on the alleged acts of violence, and it recalls that freedom of association may only be exercised in a situation where fundamental human rights are fully respected and guaranteed, in particular those relating to human life and safety. The Committee requests the Government to launch investigations in this respect, with a view to clarifying the facts and imposing penalties on the perpetrators.
Article 4 of the Convention. Compulsory arbitration. In its previous observation, the Committee noted that under Constitutional Amendment No. 45 of 8 December 2004 (reform of the judiciary; amendment of section 114) it was established that “dissidio coletivo” may only be resorted to if both parties agree (the judiciary may not be unilaterally called on to intervene) and requested the Government to provide information on the application of this constitutional amendment in practice. The Committee notes that the Government states that under the draft trade union reform, prepared in the context of the National Labour Forum (FNT), one of the priorities for which provision is made is the encouragement of collective bargaining at all levels and in all spheres of representation, removing the dialogue between workers and employers from the scope of the State, thereby strengthening the autonomy of the parties, and maintaining the State in its role of mediator. Under the trade union reform, labour tribunals are designed to become bodies for the voluntary settlement of disputes. The Government states that, the discussions in the FNT led to the consolidation of a proposal for a constitutional amendment, which is before the National Congress, and a proposal for a preliminary draft Act on trade union relations. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on all progress made with regard to the draft trade union reform and, in particular, on any provisions adopted in relation to arbitration as a means of dispute settlement, and to supply statistical information on the number of collective disputes (dissidios coletivos) dealt with by the labour tribunals since the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment of 2004.
Right to collective bargaining in the public sector. The Committee recalls that for several years it has been referring to the need for public employees who are not engaged in the administration of the State to have the right to collective bargaining. The Committee observes that the Government has not supplied any information in this respect. The Committee therefore urges the Government to provide information in its next report on any measures adopted to ensure that public employees who are not engaged in the administration of the State have the right to collective bargaining. In particular, recalling that it noted in its previous observation that the Government had indicated the existence of constitutional limitations on the public administration’s freedom of action, making collective bargaining in the public sector difficult, and that in June 2003, in the federal public service, the Permanent National Negotiation Board (MNNP) was formed, composed of the representation of eight ministries and all the representative bodies of federal public servants, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether any constitutional amendments have been proposed in this regard, and to provide information on the issues addressed by the MNNP.
The Committee recalls that in its previous observations it also referred to the need to repeal section 623 of the Consolidation of Labour Laws (CLT), under the terms of which the provisions of an agreement or accord in conflict with the orientations of the Government’s economic and financial policy or the existing wages policy shall be declared null and void. The Committee notes that the Government has not supplied any information in this respect, and emphasizes that, except in exceptional circumstances required by economic stabilization policies, it is the parties to the collective bargaining process who are best placed to determine wages and should be the ones to do so, and considers that the restriction contained in section 623 of the CLT affects the independence of the social partners during collective bargaining and impedes the development of voluntary collective bargaining procedures between employers or their organizations and organizations of workers for the establishment of conditions of employment. The Committee once again requests the Government to take steps to repeal the aforementioned legislative provision and to inform it in its next report of any measure adopted in this respect.
Finally, the Committee notes the comments from the ITUC, dated 28 August 2007, reiterating some of the comments previously submitted by the ICFTU concerning the application of the Convention. The ITUC also indicates that the decisions of the National Labour Forum (FNT) submitted to the National Congress were rejected and that no government initiative exists for changing trade union structures and, in addition, refers to acts of anti-union discrimination in the education sector. The Committee requests the Government to communicate its observations in this respect.
The Committee is raising a number of other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

[3] HOSGES-AEBERHARD, Jane; ODERO DE DIOS, Alberto. Princípios do Comitê de Liberdade Sindical Referentes a Greves. Disponível em: https://www.ilo.org/brasilia/publicacoes/WCMS_231057/lang--pt/index.htm Acessado em: 05.06.19.

[4] The Committee notes the allegations made in the observations of the trade unions that the extension of the definition of autonomous worker, as a result of new section 444-B of the CLT, will have the effect of excluding workers covered by that definition from the trade union rights recognized in both the legislation and the Convention. Recalling that the Convention applies to all workers, with the sole possible exception of the police and the armed forces (Article 5) and public servants engaged in the administration of the State (Article 6), the Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on the observations of the trade unions in relation to the impact of section 444-B of the CLT. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the other aspects of Act No. 13.467 relating to the rights enshrined in the Convention.
[5] Subjection of collective agreements to financial and economic policy. The Committee recalls that for several years it has been referring to the need to repeal section 623 of the CLT, under the terms of which provisions of an agreement or accord that are in conflict with the standards governing the Government’s economic and financial policy or the wage policy that is in force shall be declared null and void. The Committee has also been requesting the Government to take measures to amend Act No. 10192, of February 2001, issuing additional measures under the Plan Real, section 13 of which provides that automatic price index-related wage increases or adjustments may not be included in agreements, accords or dissidios coletivos. In this regard, the Committee notes that: (i) in its 2014 observations, the ITUC indicated that these provisions are used to impose restrictions on the collective bargaining of wages in public and mixed enterprises; (ii) the Government indicates that restrictions on the scope of collective agreements are established on an exceptional basis, and principally in the context of the provision of public services; and (iii) in this context, the Government adds that the constitutional protection of the general interest may require the financial clauses of collective agreements not to prejudice the wage balance on the market or price levels in the national economy.

In this regard, emphasizing that Article 4 of the Convention requires the promotion of free and voluntary collective bargaining, the Committee recalls that: (i) the public authorities may establish machinery for discussion and the exchange of views to encourage the parties to collective bargaining to take voluntarily into account considerations relating to the Government’s economic and social policy and the protection of the public interest; and (ii) restrictions on collective bargaining in relation to economic matters should only be possible in exceptional circumstances, that is in the case of serious and insurmountable difficulties in preserving jobs and the continuity of enterprises and institutions. The Committee, therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation as indicated above and to provide information in its next report on any measures adopted in this regard.


[6] The Committee noted in its previous direct request the observations made in 2013 by the Single Confederation of Workers (CUT), which alleged violations of the Convention. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.
Articles 4, 5 and 6 of the Convention. Protection against anti-union discrimination and interference; and facilities afforded to workers’ representatives. The Committee previously noted that on several occasions the Government had informed the Committee on Freedom of Association (Cases Nos 2635, 2636 and 2646) that “although freedom of association is protected under the Constitution, the national legislation does not define anti-union acts and this prevents the Ministry of Labour and Employment from taking effective preventive and repressive measures”. The Committee also noted that, during a tripartite seminar organized in 2013 by the Ministry of Labour on the “democratization of the State and participation of stakeholders: anti-union practices and the regulation of Convention No. 151”, high-level Government representatives and those of representative workers’ organizations emphasized the importance of addressing as a priority the regulation of protection against anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes that Act No. 8112 of 11 December 1990 provides for the immunity from dismissal of union leaders for up to one year after their term of office has ended. Union leaders are entitled to trade union leave. Moreover, under the Criminal Code (section 199), the use of serious violence to prevent involvement in a trade union is punishable by imprisonment and fines. Under these conditions, the Committee hopes that the Government will take all the necessary measures to adopt legislation that explicitly provides remedies and sufficiently dissuasive penalties for acts of anti-union discrimination against members of a public service trade union, and acts of interference, and requests it to provide information in its next report on any progress achieved in this respect.
The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on facilities other than trade union leave that are afforded to representatives of public employees’ organizations in order to enable them to carry out their functions promptly and efficiently (for example, the collection of trade union dues, prompt access to the management and the workplace, availability of premises, office equipment, availability of notice boards, etc.).
Articles 7 and 8. Participation of workers’ organizations in determining terms and conditions of employment. The Committee notes the Government’s indications in its report that negotiating bodies exist in various areas and that the result of the negotiations has to be submitted to Congress (or to municipal legislative chambers) as draft legislation. In its previous direct request, the Committee welcomed the Government’s indication that, in consultation with workers’ organizations, a proposal was being developed for the amendment of the legislation in order to establish a standing federal bargaining system, providing permanent mechanisms for dialogue, negotiation and the mediation of disputes, and that these proposed regulations would act as a guide for state and municipal authorities. The Government reiterates this information in its report and indicates that a seminar with broad participation was held in May 2013 on a future proposal for draft legislation. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any developments in this respect and hopes to note progress.


[7] The Committee notes the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), of 10 August 2006, referring to the exclusion of collective bargaining in subcontracting enterprises; the imposition of court awards in collective bargaining at the request of a single party; the dismissal of trade union leaders in violation of their trade union immunity; the slowness of the judicial authorities; the formulation of blacklists; the murder of leaders of rural workers’ organizations and one trade unionist in the footwear sector. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on the ICFTU’s allegations. In view of the seriousness of the acts of violence reported by the ICFTU, the Committee recalls that freedom of association can only be exercised in conditions in which fundamental human rights, and in particular those relating to human life and personal safety, are fully respected and guaranteed.
The Committee also requests the Government, in the context of the regular reporting cycle, to provide its observations for the Committee’s next session in November-December 2007 on all the issues relating to the legislation and the application of the Convention in practice raised in its previous observation in 2005 (see the 2005 observation, 76th Session).

[8] Article 1 of the Convention. Protection against anti-union discrimination. The Committee recalls that in its previous direct request it expressed the hope that, in the context of the work of the Labour Relations Council (CRT), it would be possible to prepare draft legislation explicitly setting out remedies and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in the CRT discussions have gone further concerning a Bill to prohibit anti-union practices in the country and that, in this connection, the issue of anti-union discrimination was addressed at a seminar organized by the Ministry of Labour and Employment with ILO support. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any progress in this respect and reminds it that it can have recourse to the technical assistance of the Office, if it so wishes.
Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to take measures to amend Act No. 10192 of February 2001 concerning additional measures under the Plan Real, section 13 of which provides that automatic price index-related wage increases or adjustments may not be included in agreements, accords or dissidios coletivos, so that the parties to collective bargaining can decide freely whether they wish to agree on automatic wage adjustment, particularly in collective agreements of long duration. While noting that the Government does not refer to this matter in its report, the Committee recalls that the parties to collective bargaining should be able to decide freely and voluntarily whether they wish to agree on automatic wage adjustments, particularly in collective agreements of long duration, and that limitations on collective bargaining in relation to economic matters should only be possible in the event of exceptional circumstances with a view to protecting jobs and the sustainability of enterprises or institutions. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation as indicated above, in so far it limits the possibilities of the parties in wage bargaining. The Committee asks the Government to provide information in its next report on any progress achieved in this respect.
Finally, the Committee notes the various measures adopted by the authorities to promote the application of the provisions of the Convention, including significant measures relating to mediation and tripartite activities.

[9] Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes that the Government refers in its report to the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic and the Consolidation of Labour Laws, which give effect to this Article of the Convention. In this regard, the Committee notes various complaints examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association (Cases Nos 2635, 2636 and 2646) alleging acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee observes that in the context of these cases the Government indicated that:
… although freedom of association is protected under the Constitution, the national legislation does not define anti-union acts and this prevents the Ministry of Labour and Employment from taking effective preventive and repressive measures against conduct such as that reported in this case; in order to resolve the issue the Government, together with workers and employers within the National Labour Forum (FNT), has prepared a proposal for trade union reform (369/05, currently in the final stages before the National Congress) which contains a more complete definition of anti-union acts and provides for penalties which may be imposed on offenders by the Ministry of Labour and Employment; the draft Bill on trade union relations currently before the National Congress contains a list of situations which constitute anti-union conduct (making recruitment or continued employment subject to membership, non-membership or termination of membership of a trade union organizations, dismissing or discrimination against a worker on the grounds of his or her membership or activities in a trade union organizations, participation in a strike or representation in the workplace, etc.); any sound proposal to resolve this issue must reflect the provisions of Conventions Nos 98 and 135 and establish effective mechanisms for the imposition of penalties on offenders, a point which raises differences of opinion between employers and workers as to the amount of the fines to be imposed for anti-union conduct; the proposal put forward by the FNT fills the legislative gap by defining the anti-union acts which may be committed by employers and workers, while at the same time imposing penalties which ensure the effectiveness of the legislation; and it was not possible to achieve a consensus in the FNT on the issue of penalties, in particular with regard to the amount of the fine to be imposed for anti-union conduct, but while this has delayed the passage of the draft Bill in the National Congress, it has in no way diminished the Government’s expectation that the draft will be approved as soon as possible.
In these circumstances, the Committee hopes that, in the context of the draft trade union reform to which the Government refers, remedies and sufficiently dissuasive penalties against acts of anti-union discrimination will be established explicitly with a view to ensuring that effect is given in practice to Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any measure adopted in this respect.
Article 4 of the Convention. In its previous direct request, the Committee asked the Government to indicate the provision by which Decree No. 3735 of 24 January 2001 is considered to have tacitly repealed Decree No. 908 of 31 August 1993 (the latter Decree establishes restrictions on collective wage bargaining in public and mixed enterprises, making real wage increases contingent upon certain criteria, such as increased productivity, the distribution of dividends or the alignment of the overall remuneration of employees with current levels in the labour market). The Committee takes due note of the Government’s indication that, in accordance with the Act introducing the Civil Code, when a subject is regulated by a new provision, the previous provision is automatically repealed; accordingly, with the adoption of Decree No. 2735 of 2001, establishing general rules relating to State enterprises, Decree No. 908 of 1993 is considered to be repealed.
In its previous comments, the Committee also requested the Government to take steps to amend Act No. 10192 of February 2001, concerning additional measures under the Plan Real, section 13 of which provides that automatic price index-related wage increases or adjustments may not be included in agreements or dissidios colectivos, so that the parties to collective bargaining can decide freely whether they wish to agree on automatic wage adjustment, particularly in collective agreements of long duration. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, in contrast to the comments of the Committee, the intention of this provision, in addition to avoiding the re-indexing of the economy, was to promote free bargaining between the parties, as it is for the parties to determine wage adjustments in each category. The Government adds that account also needs to be taken of the issue of inflation which, even though at a lesser level, still affects the Brazilian economy. According to the Government, the prohibition on the automatic adjustment of wages does not restrict the freedom of bargaining between the parties. In this respect, the Committee considers that the parties to collective bargaining should be able to decide freely and voluntarily whether they wish to agree on automatic wage adjustments, particularly in collective agreements of long duration. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation as indicated above, in so far as it limits the possibilities of the parties in wage bargaining.

Nenhum comentário: