The discussion around the application of collective agreements to domestic work requires close attention to the particularities of this type of employment, which is characterised by its personal nature and the absence of any profit-making purpose.
That said, the mere lack of profit does not, in itself, exclude the application of the employment regime under the Consolidation of Labour Laws (CLT). Charitable entities, associations, and residential complexes also operate on a non-profit basis yet are treated as employers under article 3 of the CLT. What defines domestic employment is the provision of services for the benefit of a household — broadly understood, including a single-person household — provided that the activity is not carried out for economic gain.
This classification extends to professionals working directly for families, such as housekeepers, gardeners, nannies, carers, drivers, and caretakers, among others. However, where the place of work is used for commercial purposes (for instance, a property let for rent or used for business activities), or where the employee’s duties overlap with the employer’s business activities (for example, a private driver performing deliveries for the employer’s company), the relationship moves beyond the domestic sphere, and the general employment rules applicable to business activities come into play.
Regarding the application of collective bargaining instruments to domestic workers, recent case law from the Superior Labour Court (Tribunal Superior do Trabalho – TST) has held that a domestic employer cannot be equated with an economic category, as they do not pursue profit-making activities. This prevents the formation of the typical bipartite structure required for collective bargaining (professional category versus economic category). In practice, this sector also lacks the usual dynamics of collective disputes, such as strikes or collective claims.
There are, however, isolated precedents from the TST recognising the validity of collective instruments negotiated by duly registered domestic employers’ unions. In addition, some commentators have argued for regulatory progress in light of International Labor Organization Convention No. 189 (enacted by Decree No. 12,009/2024), which reinforces freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining in domestic work. This debate is further supported by Constitutional Amendment No. 72/2013, which extended article 7, XXVI of the Federal Constitution (recognising collective agreements and conventions) to domestic workers, keeping alive the discussion about future legislative developments in this area.
In summary, based on the prevailing case law, the TST’s understanding has been consolidating towards the non-applicability of collective agreements to domestic employers, on the grounds that there is no corresponding economic category and due to the non-commercial nature of the relationship. Nevertheless, a concurrent line of reasoning — supported by specific precedents and international labour standards — continues to sustain the possibility of collective instruments in well-structured scenarios, particularly where there is organised union representation and clear rules on representation. In short: the current legal position leans towards non-application, yet the subject remains open to future normative developments and some degree of interpretative divergence.
FAS Advogados remains available to assist with any queries on this topic.
