Bill No. 166/2010, which reforms the text of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), is currently being processed in the Federal Senate. Its text is expected to introduce innovations that make the process more modern and agile by overcoming outdated rules and techniques that are inconsistent with the effective and swift justice everyone expects.
However, the legislative process has allowed for modifications that have shifted focus from the intended target, particularly with regard to labor proceedings. The guiding principles have been distorted and its very purpose forgotten. If the text under review prevails, the legislator will have dissociated the process from substantive labor law, forgetting that the latter is a mere instrument, not an end in itself.
The proposed wording for Article 15, if confirmed, will reveal a clear lack of commitment by the legislator to the principles that guide labor proceedings in favor of the underprivileged seeking compensation for violations of their social rights, with repercussions on funds of a predominantly food nature, and will cause a profound setback in the Brazilian justice system.
By stating that "Article 15. In the absence of rules regulating electoral, labor, or administrative processes, the provisions of this Code shall be applied supplementarily and subsidiarily," it failed to note that labor proceedings have a system of norms (principles and rules) completely distinct from civil proceedings and, even more so, from the Code of Civil Procedure. The integration of gaps in labor proceedings is axiological and principled in nature, as established in the final part of Article 769 of the CLT, a precept of long-standing application and already well-established in the labor field.
Labor proceedings require a significant principled filtering of the rules of civil procedure, which could be disrupted by the proposed amendment in the Chamber of Deputies. Therefore,
the inclusion of labor proceedings in Article 15 of the bill will raise numerous interpretative questions, including regarding the possible derogation of the long-established rule in the Consolidated Labor Laws (CLT),
creating uncertainty and turmoil in the progress of lawsuits.
Furthermore, the rule in Article 769 of the Consolidated Labor Laws (CLT) is not only more appropriate systematically than the proposed Article 15, but also broader. Indeed, Article 769 of the Consolidated Labor Laws (CLT) establishes that "in cases where there are no provisions, common procedural law shall be a subsidiary source of labor procedural law, except where it is incompatible with the rules of this Title." It can be seen, therefore, that the Code of Civil Procedure is not the subsidiary source of labor procedural law, but rather “common procedural law”, which includes numerous scattered rules, such as the Law on Small Claims Courts and the procedural rules of the Consumer Protection Code, without excluding, in any way, the supplementary application of the CPC.
The dialogue between sources in labor proceedings, therefore, is broader and is already sufficiently established through this rule of the CLT. Therefore, limiting the integration of gaps in labor proceedings solely to the CPC would represent an undeniable setback in the labor process.
We have expressed our concerns to parliamentarians, seeking the removal of this wording, which, in Anamatra's view, appears to be inappropriate, in the certainty that the entity is responsible, including by statutory provision, for fighting for a more effective Labor Court.
The Editorial Board