Principle of protection under labor rights flexibility

Author(s)

Luísa Gomes Martins

• Document type: Master's Dissertation
• Press: São Paulo.
• Institution: Universidade de São Paulo (USP). Faculdade de Direito (FD/SBD)
• Defense date: 2010-06-07

Examining board members

Cassio de Mesquita Barros Junior; Ana Amelia Mascarenhas Camargos; Otavio Pinto e Silva

• Advisor: Cassio de Mesquita Barros Junior

Abstract

The purpose of this paper, entitled Principle of protection under labor rights flexibility, is to analyze the protection of employees in the current Brazilian context, by means of the method presented by the theory of law as integrity, formulated by Ronald Dworkin. This theorys differential factor is the adoption of a new objectivity standard, as opposed to the modern scientific objectivity concept, in which the object must be necessarily known as detached from the cognoscent subject perspective. According to the new objectivity standard, no concept may be determined a priori, but only within a determined context. The same happens with the law concept. It is not possible to completely describe it a priori, the concept is created to the extent concrete cases are resolved, although we recognize paradigmatic cases. Thus, in face of a difficult case, that is, which presents controversies, the judge will always use legal standards interpreted based on the theory that best justifies the legal practice as a whole. In this way, there is no discretion in regards to the lack of standard for judgment. The law determines the correct decision, which constitutes the citizens subjective right, and the judges legal obligation. The discussion on the employees protection principle present in the Brazilian law nowadays is understood as a difficult case, according to the model described by Ronald Dworkin. The unequal character between the parties in an employment relationship is recognized, however, there are divergences in regards to the best way to achieve balance threrein. The stream defending the protection of employees by collective negotiation understands that the state protectionism no longer meets the purpose of labor law to provide balance to employment relationships, being necessary to turn labor rights flexible. The opposed stream, at its turn, understands that the purpose of labor law is better achieved exactly by the protection of the employee by the State. The divergence arises when it comes to decide which is the best employee protection concept, that is, what does equality mean within the scope of employment relationships. Upon analysis of the arguments of both streams, it is found to be stronger the stream defending state protection, because it does not make much sense to give unions the function to protect employees at the moment such entities are more fragile. Such fragility is specially caused by the same factors described by jurists as the reason to turn labor rights flexible. The current production model and unemployment are the greatest causes of union fragility. This doctrinaire dispute has an influence upon the case law. The analysis of the decisions rendered by the Labor Supreme Court demonstrates that the Court protects the minimum rights of employees and the rights representing public order rules, which may not be negotiated. In addition, it requires reciprocal concessions to make the collective negotiation valid. On the other hand, it allows the flexibility of labor rights in the cases se forth in the Constitution and available case law. (AU)