STF considers union membership fees to be valid
The Federal Supreme Court (STF) has ruled that an assistance contribution is constitutional for all employees in a category, even if they are not union members, as long as the right to object is guaranteed.
The ministers concluded their judgment on the issue on Monday (11), in the Court's virtual plenary - a deliberation format in which votes are presented electronically.
The new understanding, established in the judgment of a motion for clarification, amends the 2017 decision in the Appeal in Extraordinary Appeal (ARE) 1018459, with recognized general repercussion (Theme 935). The Plenary had ruled that it was unconstitutional to charge the contribution to workers who were not union members.
According to the decision, the assistance contribution can only be collected from employees who are not union members if the following requirements are met:
- if the payment is agreed in a collective agreement or convention of the workers in the category;
- if workers who are not union members expressly agree to the charge.
[Article]: Tax planning for telecom companies
What is an assistance contribution?
Provided for at different points in the Consolidation of Labor Laws (CLT), the assistance contribution and union tax are not to be confused. See the differences between them:
Assistance contribution
is used to fund the union's welfare activities - mainly collective bargaining. The amount is not fixed and is set by negotiation. It is also not taxable.
[Article]: Entrepreneurs understand the importance of putting themselves in the customer's shoes
Trade union tax
is also known as a union contribution and is intended to fund the system. It is equivalent to one day's pay. Before 2017, it was compulsory and had the nature of a tax. With the reform, it can only be collected if the worker expressly authorizes it. It is used for the union to offer workers benefits such as daycare, libraries, education and vocational training.
[Article]: Challenges in the search for qualified professionals
STF decision on assistance contribution and labor reform
In 2017, the Federal Supreme Court (STF) issued a crucial decision when it ruled that it was unconstitutional to establish, through collective bargaining, the obligation to pay an attendance contribution for non-unionized workers. At the time, the STF reaffirmed previous rulings that followed the same line of reasoning.
The central argument was that non-unionized workers already contributed to the union system through the compulsory union tax. Therefore, imposing a second contribution would be considered invalid.
However, it is worth noting that there was a significant change in the scenario with the introduction of the labor reform. With the changes in legislation, compulsory union tax is no longer a requirement, which has had a substantial impact on workers' financial obligations towards unions.
[Article]: The role of accounting in multinationals' compliance with tax regulations
Change of perspective during the trial
At first, rapporteur Gilmar Mendes was inclined to maintain the position that the compulsory collection of the assistance contribution was unconstitutional.
However, as the trial progressed, the dean of the court changed his perspective. He came to consider that it was necessary to revise his initial position and accept the suggestions made by Justice Luís Roberto Barroso, who defended the constitutionality of the assistance contribution.
If you need to rely on experienced accounting advice, capable of providing the best strategies for your company to improve its financial performance, get to know CLM Controller's solutions now.
Upgrade your finances:
Talk to us!
