In 2023, the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (STF) ruled on the constitutionality of the assistance contribution (contribuição assistencial) established through collective bargaining agreements or conventions, extending its applicability to all employees, including non-union members — provided that the right to object is duly guaranteed. However, the decision did not clearly define how the contribution should be implemented in practice, nor did it establish procedures for the exercise of the right to object, resulting in legal uncertainty for employees, unions, and employers.
Nearly two years later, the STF has resumed the case with the objective of clarifying the issues left unresolved since the 2023 ruling. So far, Justices Gilmar Mendes, the case’s rapporteur, and Alexandre de Moraes have cast their votes. Both opinions uphold the constitutionality of the contribution but propose key parameters for its proper application. Among the main points already addressed are: (i) a prohibition on retroactive collection; (ii) the guarantee that the right to object must be exercised freely, without interference from third parties such as employers or unions; and (iii) the requirement that the contribution amount observe the principle of reasonableness.
Under this framework, it is not sufficient for unions to simply impose excessive or arbitrary contribution amounts; they must follow clear guidelines and ensure that employees have a real and effective opportunity to exercise their right to object. In this regard, Justice Gilmar Mendes emphasized that, just as union membership procedures must be accessible, the means to submit an objection must also be simple, transparent, and widely publicized.
The judgment is expected to be concluded on June 24, 2025. The STF’s final decision will likely establish fundamental guidelines regarding the collection of the assistance contribution, valid procedures for exercising the right to object, and the boundaries of union activity in this context.
FAS Advogados remains available to provide further clarification and guidance on the implications of this matter.
