From now on, if one of the parties unjustifiably refuses to negotiate, a collective labor dispute (“dissídio coletivo”) may be filed even without the formal consent of both sides.
This was the thesis established by the Superior Labor Court (TST) on November 17, 2025, in a binding precedent. The decision marks a significant shift by relaxing the former requirement of “mutual consent” and preventing one party’s strategic omission from operating as a silent veto on access to the courts or as a pressure tactic during negotiations.
A collective labor dispute is the judicial mechanism used to resolve conflicts of interest between labor unions and employers when direct negotiations fail to produce an agreement. Before this new ruling, both parties were required to formally agree to the filing, the so-called mutual consent (“comum acordo”), which, in practice, allowed a single refusal to block the entire negotiation process.
Under the new understanding, unjustified refusals, abandonment of negotiations, repeated absences, or any artificial obstacles now violate the duty of good faith and may be interpreted as tacit consent to filing the dispute. The purpose of the TST’s position is to break deadlocks and ensure that negotiations are not indefinitely paralyzed as a matter of strategy.
This shift becomes even more relevant in light of the end of ultratividade, the rule under which clauses in collective agreements automatically remained in effect after expiration. With the consolidated legislative and jurisprudential rejection of ultratividade, all terms must be renegotiated every cycle, increasing the pressure on employers and unions to negotiate effectively, promptly, and responsibly.
Below are 5 key points for companies to consider:
1. End of the unilateral veto: An unjustified refusal by one party no longer prevents the filing of a collective dispute.
2. Greater weight to practical conduct: Active participation, attendance records, and timely responses become essential evidence.
3. Combating bad faith: Calculated omissions, strategic delays, and artificial barriers — especially considering the end of ultratividade and the urgency in closing negotiations — become ineffective.
4. Robust documentation: Notices, minutes, emails, proposals, and meeting records now play a central role in demonstrating good faith.
5. A tool to overcome unjustified stalemates: Companies gain greater stability, even amid impasses, by being able to seek judicial intervention.
For employers, the change brings greater balance and predictability, especially in a context where ultratividade no longer protects expired clauses and negotiation pressure continues to rise. The TST’s new stance does not eliminate bargaining autonomy; it simply discourages opportunistic behavior and promotes the maturation of collective labor relations.
This is an opportune moment for companies to review internal protocols, strengthen negotiation governance, and adopt a preventive, proactive, and legally sound approach.
