Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
4 min of reading 
0 comments 
Supreme Court and TST Engage in Technical Dispute Over Values Set in Initial Petition and Scope of Article 840 of the Labor Reform of 2017
A dispute of great legal and economic relevance returned to the center of attention in May 2025. The Supreme Federal Court (STF) analyzed Constitutional Complaint No. 67,042, filed by a financial institution, against a decision of the 5th Panel of the Superior Labor Court (TST).
The discussion involved Article 840, §1 of the CLT, included by Law No. 13,467/2017, the Labor Reform, which requires that requests in labor actions be certain, determined, and accompanied by a monetary value.
The STF concluded that the TST violated the plenary reserve clause, as provided in Article 97 of the Federal Constitution and reaffirmed by Binding Summary No. 10, by dismissing the provision without observing the necessary quorum.
-
The noise law will no longer be in effect at 10 PM starting in June with a new rule valid during the 2026 World Cup.
-
The Chamber opens a debate on driver’s licenses at 16 years old as part of a reform that includes around 270 proposals to change the Brazilian Traffic Code and may redesign rules for licensing, enforcement, and circulation in the country.
-
The new Civil Code could revolutionize marriages in Brazil with “express divorce” and changes that could exclude spouses from inheritance.
-
Banco do Brasil sues famous influencer for million-dollar debt and intensifies debate on delinquency, risks of seizure, and direct impact on Gkay’s credibility.
Despite the repercussions, the Supreme did not impose a direct limit on labor condemnations. The Court merely recognized a formal and procedural error, as the Panel dismissed the norm without following the required constitutional procedure.
Supreme Reinforces Due Constitutional Process
According to the STF, by dismissing Article 840, §1 of the CLT, the TST acted as if it had declared the unconstitutionality of the norm, without having the authority to do so. This attribution belongs exclusively to the Plenary or the Special Body.
Thus, the STF reinforced the due constitutional process and kept the merits of the issue open. The TST, in turn, included the matter in Repetitive Theme No. 35, linked to IRR No. 1199-29.2021.5.09.0654, which is still awaiting judgment by the Plenary.
Meanwhile, decisions remain fragmented and without binding effect, creating legal insecurity for companies and workers.
Decision in July 2025 Revives the Deadlock
The deadlock gained momentum in July 2025, when Minister Alexandre Ramos, of the 4th Panel of the TST, limited the condemnation to the values indicated in the initial petition. The decision occurred in case 0011049-20.2020.5.15.0026, which involved a worker from the financial sector.
The claimant had assigned R$ 1.58 million to the case, later adjusted to R$ 2.29 million, but the sentence exceeded this value. The 15th Region Labor Court upheld the condemnation, stating that the values were mere estimates.
The minister, however, cited Article 492 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which prevents the judge from condemning in an amount greater than the initial request. According to him, liquid and determined requests require that the judge respect the values presented, unless there is a justified reason.
As this justification did not exist, the condemnation was limited to the value of the initial petition, reviving the debate about the binding force of the assigned values.
Internal Discrepancies Highlight the Deadlock Between the Courts
The decision contradicted the understanding of the SDI-1 of the TST, established in 2023, which considered the values in the initial petition as merely estimative. Minister Ramos, however, emphasized that six ministers were absent from the judgment and that the ruling did not alter the understanding of the 4th Panel.
The STF, in similar decisions, reinforced the same position. Minister Alexandre de Moraes, in Complaint 79.034/SP, and Minister Gilmar Mendes, in Complaint 77.179, voided TST rulings that dismissed Article 840, §1 of the CLT without observing the required constitutional quorum.
In October 2025, the 2nd Panel of the STF fully confirmed Gilmar Mendes’ decision by rejecting the appeal from the workers’ side. The ruling reinforced formal rigor and respect for the Constitution, becoming a jurisprudential reference.
New Stance Marks Labor Jurisprudence
These decisions demonstrate a phase of greater caution between the STF and the TST. Although the merits remain pending, there is a trend of institutional alignment and greater legal prudence in new decisions.
The STF made it clear that any dismissal of a norm must be decided by the Plenary, under penalty of nullity. Until the final judgment of Repetitive Theme No. 35, lawyers and judges await with anticipation the definition that may redefine labor condemnations in the country.
In light of this legal dispute, one question remains: should the Labor Court respect the value of the initial petition or maintain freedom to set higher condemnations?
Seja o primeiro a reagir!