[ad_1]
A public note from SindPD, a union of information technology workers, has definitely opened a debate that has been announcing and developing since the approval of the so-called labor reform. The organization states that workers who do not pay the union dues will not be taken into account with the benefits obtained by collective agreement.
One of the changes imposed by law 13467 was the end of the compulsory union dues. The new reality has pushed the unions to act so as not to lose revenue. A first step was to question the constitutionality of the end of the contribution. After the victories and defeats, the Federal Supreme Court declared that the change in legislation was in force.
As a result of the ministers' decision, some unions are beginning to look for a new way of maintaining the contribution: to condition the benefits defined in the collective agreements to the payment of the union's contribution.
According to SindPD, a TAC signed nearly 20 years ago with the Public Prosecutor's Office obliges all computer scientists not affiliated with the union to object in writing to the contribution to collective bargaining. This year, a sentence has been inserted: a worker who does not want to contribute should also give up the achievements of the union.
"If the colleague considers these achievements, in addition to the services offered by the union, insignificant to the point of not wanting to contribute with its maintenance or enlargement, that he will abandon the same thing.This would be the fair. He wants to have everything, but does not want to pay anything for it. It certainly is a new theme, it would be the flip side of those who have always argued that it should not be compulsory union contribution. "
Judicial decision
The debate has already reached the courts. The judge of São Paulo's 30th Labor Court, Eduardo Rockenbach Pires, ruled that the benefits negotiated in a collective agreement did not apply to non-union employees. The decision refers to the case 01619-2009-030-00-9.
The Ministry of Labor was also involved in the debate. Labor prosecutor, Juliana Mendes Martins Rosolen, of the Regional Labor Prosecutor's Office of the 15th region, dismissed an application to open an investigation against a union denounced for having forced professionals who had refused to pay the contribution to the entity
. justice and fairness being only entitled to badistance services provided by the union that contribute to its maintenance.
"For the moment, it is considered that there is no public interest to be protected by the public prosecutor with regard to the subject of the complaint." In fact, any public civil action in the current context would not have the power to protect the interests but rather to increase the risk of harm to such interests, which depend to survive the existence of a trade union movement. " , said Juliana.
Split Law
The Subject Divides Opinions in the Law. Lívio Enescu Former President and Current Counselor of the Association of Labor Lawyers of São Paulo, shares the opinion of SindPD.
"I was against the abolition of the union tax. We could have a shortage of about five years and even a union reform and the extinction of the institute.I understand that the worker who chose not to be unionized or taxpayer can not get to take advantage of the union's free badistance and therefore can not resort to union bargaining, despite the legislation. I think the union makes this clear, "he said in an interview with Conjur .
Already for the lawyer Luis Fernando Riskalla partner of Milk, Tosto and Barros Advogados, a specialist in labor relations and trade unions, is very controversial and recent in the face of labor reform, saying that unions have forced workers – who do not contribute – to sign a letter giving up right that they have acquired in this agreement or this collective agreement. "It is completely illegal. The union can not do this because it legally represents the clbad and is not the only contributor to the union. " for Camila Silva lawyer for the public relations service of the conduct of these unions violates the constitutional principles of equality set forth in article caput of Article 5, principle of free badociation, in the article Braga Nascimento and Zilio Advogados, in addition to being illegal and misplaced 8 point V and trade union representation (Article 8 , III, of the FC). "It is certain that the union can not exclude the worker who exercises his power of opposition," he declared. [1945917] Advocates explains that " Consolidated agreement by the STF has removed the mandatory feature of the union contribution with respect to the autonomy and freedom of the worker from to choose whether or not to affiliate with such entities, "he said, bearing in mind the unions' conduct." There are rights to which the worker can not give up. In addition, it is an attempt to create a mandatory collection, "he concludes.
[ad_2]
Source link
