The Federal Supreme Court (STF) began this Friday (8) the virtual trial of the appeals presented by various entities regarding the decision related to the national nursing minimum in the public and private sectors.
Ministers are analyzing “clarification embargoes”, a type of resource used to question points that were not clear in the court’s decision. The trial will take place virtually, between December 8th and 18th, without in-person discussion, with ministers voting through the STF system. If there is a request for a review, the trial will be suspended. If a prominent request occurs, the analysis will be taken to the physical plenary of the Court.
Among the questions presented, there are points such as the creation of rules for implementing the minimum wage, the formula adopted in counting votes to reach the conclusion of the trial, and the linking of payment to the category’s working hours.
The judgment is eagerly awaited by representatives of the category, who defend the maintenance of the law approved by the National Congress, which establishes a minimum salary of R$4,750 for nurses, R$3,325 for nursing technicians and R$2,375 for nursing assistants.
The employers’ side, represented by the National Confederation of Health, Hospitals and Establishments and Services (CNSaúde), defends the review of the law, claiming that it could lead to unemployment and increased costs for health services.
The National Confederation of Municipalities (CNM) also questions the law, claiming that it does not take into account the financial capacity of subnational entities.
The Federal Nursing Council (Cofen) defends the maintenance of the law, but asks that some points be clarified, such as how the floor is applied in the private sector.
Understand:
In July, the STF concluded its judgment on the validity of the floor and established a series of conditions for payment.
In the public sector, states and municipalities must implement the minimum wage in accordance with transfers from the Union. In the private sector, the minimum wage must be established after collective negotiation between employers and employees and must be proportional in cases of working hours of less than 8 hours per day or 44 hours a week.
The law that created the floor was approved by Congress and sanctioned by then-president Jair Bolsonaro (PL) in August 2022. Payment was suspended in an individual preliminary (provisional) decision by minister Roberto Barroso. He ordered that the economic impacts of the measure be clarified.
The payment was only released by the STF in May this year, after approval by the Legislature of funding sources for the measure.
After the STF’s definition of the private sector, representatives of workers and employers began negotiating ways to apply the minimum wage in hospitals and private health clinics, in mediation at the Superior Labor Court (TST).
After a round of proposals, rejected by the category, the workers had to present a counter-proposal until Monday (4).
What the Senate says:
In the appeal presented to the STF, the Senate contests points in the Supreme Court’s decision and asks for the law that approved the category’s minimum wage to be fully reestablished.
One of the arguments is that there was no majority vote in the Court for the definitions adopted with the judgment, such as the one that imposed the duty of collective bargaining in the private sector. The appeal states that the conditions determined by the ministers represent “legislative activity” of the Judiciary.
For the Senate, the magistrates’ choice to separate how and when each sector of the category will receive the minimum wage “characterizes true legislative activity on the part of the Judiciary” instead of the process taking place in Congress.
According to the Casa Alta, the Supreme Court replaced “all debates held within the scope of the National Congress, which had the broad participation of the actors involved, whether subnational entities, health workers, or private entities in the sector, and which culminated in the best possible solution for implementing the nursing floor.”
Another point contested by the Senate is the way in which the Court defines nurses in the private sector.
There were three different currents presented by the ministers, and none of them formed a majority. Minister Roberto Barroso understood that the average vote between the proposals should prevail.
For the Senate, there is no “valid legal basis” for the average position of votes to prevail.
The Federal Supreme Court (STF) began this Friday (8) the virtual trial of the appeals presented by various entities regarding the decision related to the national nursing minimum in the public and private sectors.
Ministers are analyzing “clarification embargoes”, a type of resource used to question points that were not clear in the court’s decision. The trial will take place virtually, between December 8th and 18th, without in-person discussion, with ministers voting through the STF system. If there is a request for a review, the trial will be suspended. If a prominent request occurs, the analysis will be taken to the physical plenary of the Court.
Among the questions presented, there are points such as the creation of rules for implementing the minimum wage, the formula adopted in counting votes to reach the conclusion of the trial, and the linking of payment to the category’s working hours.
The judgment is eagerly awaited by representatives of the category, who defend the maintenance of the law approved by the National Congress, which establishes a minimum salary of R$4,750 for nurses, R$3,325 for nursing technicians and R$2,375 for nursing assistants.
The employers’ side, represented by the National Confederation of Health, Hospitals and Establishments and Services (CNSaúde), defends the review of the law, claiming that it could lead to unemployment and increased costs for health services.
The National Confederation of Municipalities (CNM) also questions the law, claiming that it does not take into account the financial capacity of subnational entities.
The Federal Nursing Council (Cofen) defends the maintenance of the law, but asks that some points be clarified, such as how the floor is applied in the private sector.
Understand:
In July, the STF concluded its judgment on the validity of the floor and established a series of conditions for payment.
In the public sector, states and municipalities must implement the minimum wage in accordance with transfers from the Union. In the private sector, the minimum wage must be established after collective negotiation between employers and employees and must be proportional in cases of working hours of less than 8 hours per day or 44 hours a week.
The law that created the floor was approved by Congress and sanctioned by then-president Jair Bolsonaro (PL) in August 2022. Payment was suspended in an individual preliminary (provisional) decision by minister Roberto Barroso. He ordered that the economic impacts of the measure be clarified.
The payment was only released by the STF in May this year, after approval by the Legislature of funding sources for the measure.
After the STF’s definition of the private sector, representatives of workers and employers began negotiating ways to apply the minimum wage in hospitals and private health clinics, in mediation at the Superior Labor Court (TST).
After a round of proposals, rejected by the category, the workers had to present a counter-proposal until Monday (4).
What the Senate says:
In the appeal presented to the STF, the Senate contests points in the Supreme Court’s decision and asks for the law that approved the category’s minimum wage to be fully reestablished.
One of the arguments is that there was no majority vote in the Court for the definitions adopted with the judgment, such as the one that imposed the duty of collective bargaining in the private sector. The appeal states that the conditions determined by the ministers represent “legislative activity” of the Judiciary.
For the Senate, the magistrates’ choice to separate how and when each sector of the category will receive the minimum wage “characterizes true legislative activity on the part of the Judiciary” instead of the process taking place in Congress.
According to the Casa Alta, the Supreme Court replaced “all debates held within the scope of the National Congress, which had the broad participation of the actors involved, whether subnational entities, health workers, or private entities in the sector, and which culminated in the best possible solution for implementing the nursing floor.”
Another point contested by the Senate is the way in which the Court defines nurses in the private sector.
There were three different currents presented by the ministers, and none of them formed a majority. Minister Roberto Barroso understood that the average vote between the proposals should prevail.
For the Senate, there is no “valid legal basis” for the average position of votes to prevail.
