The 2017 labor reform introduced Chapter III-A into the Consolidation of Labor Laws (CLT), establishing rules for voluntary jurisdiction proceedings for the approval of out-of-court settlements. Since then, both workers and employers have used this legal mechanism as an important tool for preventing disputes.
However, during these years, case law has developed in the sense of not ratifying out-of-court settlements that contain a broad discharge clause for the employment contract. This trend was mainly due to the interpretation that Article 855-E of the CLT requires the specification of the rights involved in the out-of-court settlement. Thus, the discharge resulting from the ratification decision would be limited to these rights.
On September 30, Brazil's judicial oversight body, the National Council of Justice (CNJ), chaired by Minister Luis Roberto Barroso, approved Resolution 586/24, which regulates consensual dispute resolution methods in the Labor Courts.
The resolution aims to ensure the broad, general, and irrevocable discharge of obligations in out-of-court settlements ratified by the Labor Courts, thereby addressing labor litigation. This is because, once a settlement is ratified, any potential future claims between the parties are terminated, except for the exceptions set forth in the resolution itself, as detailed below.
With this initiative, the CNJ reinforced the legal framework for out-of-court settlements and clarified that, once the legal requirements are met, judges must recognize the full discharge of obligations, without discretionary power over the matter.
In addition to the provisions in Articles 855-B to 855-E of Law 13,467/17, the resolution establishes that, for a broad discharge to be valid, the ratified settlement must explicitly provide for its unrestricted effect. Moreover, the parties must be represented by a lawyer or trade union, and joint legal representation is prohibited (Art. 1, I and II).
Another key provision requires the mandatory presence of parents, curators, or legal guardians in cases involving minors under 16 or incapacitated persons.
The resolution also sets out four exceptions that allow workers to assert claims for rights they were unaware of when signing the settlement:
- Cases in which sequelae from workplace accidents or occupational diseases were disregarded;
- Claims related to facts that were unknown at the time of settlement ratification;
- Claims from parties who were not represented or properly substitute in the settlement; and
- Bonds and securities expressly and specifically reserved.
Regarding for ratification, the resolution prohibits partial ratification of settlements and requires that the parties, or their legal representatives, voluntarily appear before the judicial authorities, including the Judicial Centers for Consensual Dispute Resolution in Labor Courts (Cejusc-JT).
The text also sets forth that, for the first six months, the resolution will only cover settlements worth more than 40 minimum wages, making it possible to analyze the impact of the measure on the courts.
Another relevant provision is that the agreement shall be approved as long as there is no defect in consent or flaw in the legal transaction, such as those listed in Articles 138 to 184 of the Civil Code. Furthermore, the regulation clarifies that such defects cannot be presumed solely based on the worker’s economic vulnerability. This represents an important interpretative development, making it clear that having stronger bargaining power is not a requirement for judicial approval.
The resolution is an important milestone, guaranteeing legal certainty for employers and workers, avoiding prolonged discussions in the Labor Courts, and encouraging additional measures such as the use of voluntary jurisdiction.
