Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
8 min of reading 
27 comments 
Historical Reimbursement of Covid-19: Complementary Law 226 Unlocks Frozen Rights, Authorizes Retroactive Payments to Employees, and Places Budgetary Pressure on States and Municipalities After Years of Waiting in Brazil
Historical reimbursement of Covid-19 gained a legal basis with Complementary Law 226, signed by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and published in the Official Gazette on January 13, authorizing retroactive compensation for frozen remuneration rights during the pandemic for employees in states, the Federal District, and municipalities, subject to budgetary availability.
The new framework does not create an automatic payment obligation but opens the way for each federative entity to decide how to apply compensation according to its fiscal situation and local financial regulations. The focus is on the period from May 28, 2020, to December 31, 2021, associated with the state of public calamity declared during the health crisis and the freezing of functional advantages.
What Changes with Complementary Law 226 and Why Was It Signed
Complementary Law 226 was signed and published in the Official Gazette on January 13, authorizing retroactive compensation for remuneration rights that remained frozen during the Covid-19 pandemic.
-
A new Brazilian shopping center worth R$ 400 million will be built in an area equivalent to more than 4 football fields, featuring 90 stores, 5 cinemas, a supermarket, a college, and parking for 1,700 cars, potentially generating 3,000 jobs.
-
Larger than entire cities in Brazil: BYD is building a 4.6 km² complex in Bahia with a capacity for 600,000 vehicles per year, but the discovery of 163 workers in conditions analogous to slavery has shaken the entire project.
-
With an investment of R$ 612 million, a capacity to process 1.2 million liters of milk per day, Piracanjuba inaugurates a mega cheese factory that increases national production, reduces dependence on imports, and repositions Brazil on the global dairy map.
-
Brazilian city gains industrial hub for 85 companies that is equivalent to 55 football fields.
The scope includes public employees in states, the Federal District, and municipalities, forming a wide area of application within the Brazilian public sector.
In practice, the law creates a legal basis to unlock retroactive payments associated with functional advantages that were limited by previous regulations during the pandemic.
The sanction was presented as a way to correct the effects of Complementary Law 173 of 2020, cited as responsible for imposing restrictions on the payment of functional advantages during the most critical period of the health crisis.
This point is central because it connects the new framework to the idea of administrative reparation: many employees continued to work during the pandemic and still did not receive due recognition of their service time for certain functional advantages.
In this context, the historical reimbursement of Covid-19 does not appear as a generic payment but as the possibility of reinstatement of rights linked to the employee’s functional trajectory, directly impacting benefits traditionally calculated by service time.
This detail is where the law intervenes: instead of creating a new benefit, it authorizes that existing advantages, frozen during the period, be considered for retroactive compensation.
Which Employees Are Included and Which Federative Entities Are Affected
The law refers to public employees and explicitly mentions states, the Federal District, and municipalities.
In other words, the scope is federative and decentralized, with execution and decision anchored in the entities that manage their own payroll and budgets.
This means that the application does not arise from a single order for the entire country.
The legal framework functions as an authorization, an open path.
The decision to apply or not, when to apply, and how to apply falls upon each state and municipality, in addition to the Federal District, which has its own characteristics of public administration.
This design places the historical reimbursement of Covid-19 in a territory of administrative autonomy.
In other words, the law opens the door, but it is local administrations that decide to go through it, considering what they can sustain in terms of budget, fiscal rules, and internal financial standards.
Benefits and Functional Advantages Mentioned: What Can Be Included in the Compensation
The law mentions a set of advantages and benefits linked to service time and traditional progressions within public careers.
Among the items mentioned are:
anuênio
triênio
quinquênio
sexta-parte
licença-prêmio
These terms are not accessories. They indicate the type of impact the authorization may have: they are advantages that, in many careers, are tied to service time counting and milestones of permanence in public service.
When this type of counting is restricted or when payment is blocked, the effect accumulates over time and creates a liability perceived as loss by employees.
From the moment the law authorizes retroactive compensation, it opens the possibility of reinstating these items, but always with a clear condition: the budgetary availability of states, municipalities, and the Federal District.
In other words, the law describes what can be included in the package, but payment depends on cash flow, planning, and execution decision.
Temporal Scope of Retroactive Payment and Relationship with the State of Calamity
The defined interval for retroactive payments runs from May 28, 2020, to December 31, 2021.
This temporal cut is one of the most important details as it delineates the period in which compensation can be aimed, preventing the discussion from becoming something borderless.
According to the information provided, this period covers the state of public calamity declared during the health crisis.
In practice, this means that the temporal framework is linked to the context in which restrictions were applied and the moment the pandemic impacted public administration, including issues related to spending restrictions and limitations on adjustments and advantages.
By defining dates, the historical reimbursement of Covid-19 is anchored in a closed interval, which tends to guide calculations, time assessments, and administrative impact analyses.
This can also facilitate decisions by local governments, as the liability does not remain undefined: it is tied to the period from May 2020 to the end of 2021.
The Budgetary Condition as the Axis of Historical Reimbursement of Covid-19
The text indicates that compensations are conditioned on the budgetary availability of federative entities.
At the same time, it states that the authorization for uncoupling does not incur an increase in mandatory expenses because the amounts were already integrated into the state and municipal budgets.
This is a technical point that often generates debate: something may not be classified as an increase in mandatory expenditure and still represent real pressure on cash flow.
What the law describes is that it is not creating a new and immediate obligation imposed from above.
It recognizes that there was budgetary space provided, but execution depends on local political and administrative decisions.
In practice, the word “budgetary” becomes the key to the timeline.
The historical reimbursement of Covid-19, even when authorized, will depend on how each state and municipality organizes priorities, complies with internal limits, and negotiates execution within financial rules.
The law does not eliminate the dilemma: it formalizes the possibility of payment, but leaves the management of the impact with the entities.
Correction of the Effects of Complementary Law 173 and the Freezing During the Pandemic
Complementary Law 173 of 2020 is cited as the norm that imposed restrictions on the payment of functional advantages.
The new legislation, according to the information provided, emerges to correct the effects of this restriction and repair situations in which employees continued to work during the pandemic but did not receive recognition of service time for certain advantages.
This detail is important because it shows the administrative reason for the conflict: it is not just about direct salary adjustments, but about advantages connected to time and functional development.
The perception mentioned is one of lack of recognition of service time during a period when many continued to perform activities.
As a result, the historical reimbursement of Covid-19 transforms into a mechanism for reinstating a specific window, defined in dates and functional items, which was frozen by previous restrictions.
Autonomy of Federative Entities: The Law Authorizes, but Does Not Oblige
The point of autonomy is clearly reiterated: it is up to each state and municipality to decide whether or not to apply the compensation, considering fiscal situations and local financial rules.
The law does not obligate federative entities to make payments.
In practical terms, this creates different scenarios across the country:
- States and municipalities that implement the compensation and set their own schedule
- States and municipalities that partially implement, depending on budgetary availability
- States and municipalities that choose not to implement, despite the legal basis
The effect of this architecture is that the historical reimbursement of Covid-19 may progress unevenly, with variations in speed and coverage according to each locality’s fiscal capacity.
This is not outside the federative logic: it is exactly what happens when the law provides authorization but preserves local autonomy.
Origin in the Senate and the Argument of Pay Equity, with Mention to Education
The legal framework originated in the Senate and was associated with pay equity, with mention of sectors such as education, identified as areas awaiting regulation.
This detail reinforces that the issue did not arise in a vacuum: there was an institutional trajectory.
It also indicates that the debate connected with categories that were advocating for recognition and reinstatement of advantages, especially when the freeze affected careers with progress linked to time.
With the sanction and publication on January 13, the debate moves from the expectation phase to the local decision phase: what each state and municipality will do with this authorization.
How Historical Reimbursement of Covid-19 Can Materialize in Administrative Practice
With the information provided, it is possible to organize the practical path into administrative steps that tend to emerge when an authorization of this type comes into effect:
Identification of which remuneration rights and which functional advantages were frozen in the period from May 28, 2020, to December 31, 2021
Verification of classification by career and local rules, as states and municipalities have their own normative frameworks
Calculation of the budgetary impact of the compensation, even when the law states that it does not create mandatory expenditure
Political and administrative decision of the federative entity on whether to apply or not apply
Definition of schedule and form of retroactive compensation, respecting budgetary availability
The law, therefore, acts as the legal trigger. It unlocks the possibility.
But the retroactive payment, being conditional and depending on autonomy, tends to become a technical process, with internal discussions about budget, limits, and execution.
Where It Happened and Why It Matters
The central act cited is federal: presidential sanction and publication in the Official Gazette on January 13.
However, the application of the historical reimbursement of Covid-19, by the very structure of the law, spreads across states, the Federal District, and municipalities, which are responsible for deciding whether to adopt the compensation.
In other words, the decision arises at the federal level, but the concrete effect will occur at the local level, within the administrations of states and municipalities, which have different payrolls, financial rules, and fiscal realities.
Do you think states and municipalities should apply the historical reimbursement of Covid-19 immediately, even with budgetary restrictions, or should they parcel and prioritize specific sectors first?
Pagar imediatamente
Deve ser aplicado a todos, independente de qual setor ou órgão pertença.
Trabalhamos nesse período triplicado sob pressão física e psicológica, muitos perderam a vida no exercício do seu trabalho.
Cadê o dinheiro que nesse período estava destinado a esses direitos e não foram utilizados para pagar as pessoas?
Os Estados, municípios e o Distrito Federal que se virem para cumprir suas obrigações.
Quando é para aumentar seus salário o orçamento sempre existe!
Devem aplicar imediatamente, porque muitos os funcionários se desdobraram para trabalhar nessas épocas, porque não tinha número de servidores suficientes, muitos estavam afastado e os que estavam na ativa trabalhava o dobro.