The TST (Superior Labor Court), in ruling on Topic 215, decided that workers may, exceptionally, file a labor lawsuit in their place of residence, even if the defendant company is not large or does not operate nationwide. The decision establishes a precedent that is mandatory for similar cases throughout the country. Until now, TST jurisprudence only allowed filing in the worker's domicile when the company was large and operated nationally, a requirement eliminated by the new decision.
The decision, however, does not create an automatic exception. Specific justification regarding the circumstances of the case is required, such as inability to travel due to a work accident, vulnerability aggravated by rural labor migration, or disproportionately burdensome distance. Presumed economic hardship or geographical distance, in isolation, are not sufficient. The court determined that the company's right to defense must be preserved, including through electronic procedural acts, even though the rapporteur, Minister Lelio Bentes Corrêa, noted that not all workers have equal access to digital tools.
Three specific cases formed the basis of the judgment: a driver hired in Palhoça (SC) who provided services between Uruguay, São Paulo, and Curitiba; a rural worker from Senhor do Bonfim (BA) who worked in conditions analogous to slavery in Porangaba (SP); and an assistant from Campina Grande (PB) who suffered a disabling work accident in Santa Maria das Barreiras (PA). The thesis was approved by majority vote, with partial dissent from two ministers and a completely dissenting vote from two others.
The decision has a direct effect on M&A transactions and other labor due diligence processes. Since the competent court is no longer necessarily linked to the headquarters, branches, or location where the target company provides services, lawsuits can proceed in courts throughout the country, in the domicile of each employee, former employee, or outsourced worker. This makes the traditional tracking of certificates, concentrated in the jurisdictions where the company is known to operate, potentially incomplete, requiring future due diligence to broaden the search to include the domicile of migrant, rural, and outsourced workers identified on the payroll or in service contracts.
Our office remains available to answer questions and assist in analyzing the impacts of this important decision.
