Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
5 min of reading 
0 comments 
Supreme Court Declared 11 Points of Law 13.103/2015 Unconstitutional, but Experts Warn that Generalization of Rules Ignores Distinct Realities of Sectors and May Generate Legal Uncertainty and Labor Imbalances.
The decision by the Supreme Federal Court (STF) that declared 11 provisions of the Motorist Law (Law 13.103/2015) unconstitutional reignited the debate on how to balance the rights of workers in the transportation sector without ignoring the specificities of each segment. The judgment of Direct Unconstitutionality Action (ADI) 5322, filed by the National Confederation of Transport Workers (CNTT), concluded that rules such as fractional rest, exclusion of waiting time from working hours, and rest in moving vehicles violate constitutional principles of worker protection.
The decision, however, raised concerns among entrepreneurs and representatives of the passenger transport sector, who argue that the particularities of chartering, tourism, and urban routes are distinct from those of freight transportation — the main focus of the law and the discussions in the Supreme Court.
What Changed with the STF Decision
Among the points considered unconstitutional by the STF are:
-
Automatic traffic fines reach R$ 1,467 in 2026 and expand monitoring with radars and cameras throughout Brazil.
-
US$ 7.3 billion, trains at 350 km/h, and over 6 million passengers in just one year transform the railway built by China in Indonesia into a new mobility axis that could redefine transportation in Southeast Asia.
-
Recycled tire asphalt, Wi-Fi, and electric charging: meet the smart highway that is changing the future of Brazilian roads.
-
Engineers are assembling 89 blocks of 73,500 tons like giant Lego at the bottom of the Baltic Sea at a depth of 40 meters to create the world’s largest underwater tunnel between Germany and Denmark.
- Fractional Rest: it will no longer be possible to reduce the minimum period of 11 hours between shifts or to fraction this time in coincidence with mandatory stops provided for in the Brazilian Traffic Code (CTB).
- Accumulated Weekly Rest: the accumulation of weekly rest periods was prohibited, on the grounds that this violates the health of the worker.
- Waiting Time: it can no longer be excluded from the workday. The time in which the driver waits for loading, unloading, or inspection must be accounted for as effective service time.
- Rest in Motion: the possibility of resting with the vehicle in motion was invalidated, even in a rotating system between two drivers.
For the rapporteur, Minister Alexandre de Moraes, these practices undermined working conditions and compromised road safety. “It is unimaginable to consider the proper rest of a worker in a moving vehicle, which often does not even have adequate accommodation,” he recorded in his vote.
Voices from the Sector: The Impact on Passenger Transportation
At the 1st Forum of Charter and Tourism Companies, held by Transfretur in São Paulo, legal representatives and magistrates highlighted that the Supreme Court failed to apply the same logic for both freight and passengers.
Judge Valdir Florindo, president of the Regional Labor Court of the 2nd Region, recalled in his lecture the difficulties faced by his own father, a bus driver. Although recognizing the importance of the STF decision in safeguarding worker health, Florindo argued that collective negotiations should have more space to adjust specific rules to each reality.
Lawyer Joel Bittencourt, legal advisor of Transfretur, stated that Moraes’ vote was based exclusively on the conditions of freight transportation. “In his entire vote, he mentions roads, stopping points, difficulties of highways, but does not mention chartering. The charter driver generally has the conditions to rest at home, unlike the truck driver who spends days away,” he explained.
Workers Also Demand Differentiation
On the workers’ side, the assessment was similar. Lawyer Adilson R. Boaretto, advisor to CNTTT and FTTRESP, pointed out that the law has always focused more on road freight transport but also ended up covering passenger drivers. For him, the STF decision should not impede categories from discussing their own rules through collective negotiation.
“Tourist drivers have adapted well to the rotating shifts of two drivers on long trips. How can we change this all of a sudden, if there is no damage to health? We want unions to be able to negotiate fragmentations and adjustments according to the reality of each sector,” he declared.
Possible Paths: Politics and Collective Negotiation
Experts point out two paths to correct the “generalization” of the decision:
- Political Articulation – strengthen the representation of the charter and tourism sector in Congress, preventing legislative discussions from being restricted to freight transportation.
- Collective Negotiation – seek labor agreements that reflect the specificities of each segment, even if they may lead to long judicial disputes until reaching the STF again.
According to Bittencourt, relying solely on the judicial path may further overload the courts. “It is a risky, time-consuming course that creates uncertainty. We need political leadership from the sector,” he warned.
Between Protection and Viability
The STF decision is seen as an advancement in the aspect of social protection and combating precariousness. However, critics argue that it may generate operational uncertainty by applying rules uniformly to distinct sectors.
While truck drivers face long journeys on highways far from home, charter drivers often work different schedules, with breaks that allow them to rest in their homes. This difference, experts argue, should be at the center of discussions.
Tax Reform Also Concerns the Sector
In addition to the Motorists Law, the Transfretur Forum also discussed the impacts of Tax Reform on the chartering sector. Specialized lawyers warned that, in some cases, the tax burden could increase by up to 600%, which would directly affect the competitiveness of companies.
This accumulation of challenges — tax increase and uncertainty in labor rules — puts the sector on high alert. For entrepreneurs and workers, it is essential that negotiations advance in a way that ensures legal security without compromising the health and rights of drivers.
The STF decision regarding the Motorists Law represents a milestone in the fight for worker protection but also exposes the need for differentiation between transportation segments. While truck drivers require strict rules to prevent abuses and health risks, on the other hand, charter and tourism drivers have distinct realities that require greater flexibility.
More than a legal dispute, the issue requires political articulation and collective negotiation. Only then can we ensure that fundamental rights are preserved without compromising the operational viability of companies and the sustainability of the sector.
Seja o primeiro a reagir!