TRT-4 Decision Becomes Headline, but Uber Strongly Responds, Exposing Contradictions and Promising to Fight Until the Last Appeal
A bombshell ruling has reignited an old debate: are app drivers employees or partners? In Rio Grande do Sul, the answer came forcefully.
Judges Made the Call: The Link Exists
At the end of July 2024, the 3rd Panel of the Regional Labor Court of the 4th Region (TRT-4) had no doubts. It ruled that Uber must recognize the employment relationship with one of its drivers.
According to the records, he worked between April 2019 and September 2023, earning about R$ 4,500 per month through the platform. Furthermore, the decision set an initial compensation of R$ 100,000 and required payment for vacation, 13th salary, FGTS, and even unemployment insurance.
-
Spain surprises the world by erecting 62 artificial dunes, mixing sand with natural remains of posidonia, and causing the structure to lose only 1.4% of its volume in 1 year.
-
With 16 Bulava missiles, improvements in acoustic stealth, and a design focused on silent patrols, Russia’s nuclear submarine was born to ensure Moscow’s invisible retaliation and has become one of the pillars of its maritime strength.
-
‘Populous’ city in Rio among the worst in Brazil in national ranking and exposes silent development crisis.
-
Couple buys house in the South Zone of São Paulo, opens a hidden door in the garage, and finds a secret wine cellar with dozens of old wines forgotten since the 1970s.
For the rapporteur, judge Clóvis Fernando Schuch Santos, this case fits neatly within the CLT.
Rejecting a Ride Became Punishment, Says Driver
According to the worker, not accepting rides resulted in “punishment”: more messages, fewer calls, and even the risk of being blocked. In other words, without real freedom.
Moreover, he stated that he could not be replaced and that he used the app almost every day, always in a personal and continuous manner. For the court, this was enough to characterize a formal employment relationship.
Uber Responds: “This Decision Ignores Everything!”
In the same week as the decision, on July 23, 2024, Uber issued a tough and direct official statement: it will appeal and will not comply with the order before the appeals are exhausted.
The company stated that the ruling ignores over 18,000 previous decisions — including from the same 3rd Panel of the TRT-4, which has denied the employment link in similar cases.
“This is an isolated understanding, contrary to what the Court itself has been deciding in recent years,” responded the company.
Furthermore, according to Uber, the driver did not show up for the hearing and was declared confessed, which makes the decision even more contestable.
Decisions from the TST and STF Favor the Company
Uber noted that the TST (Superior Labor Court) and the STF (Federal Supreme Court) have made it clear: drivers have total freedom over their schedules, locations, and routines — the opposite of the rigidity of the CLT.
The 5th Panel of the TST, for example, observed “extreme flexibility” in the model. The 4th Panel emphasized that there is no requirement for minimum hours. Both collegiate bodies found that this type of work does not involve subordination, an essential element of formal employment.
The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) and the STF, since 2019, have also been stating the same: without fixed hours and without a fixed salary, there is no employment, period.
STF May Decide Everything at Once
At the center of this dispute is the Extraordinary Appeal 1.446.336, filed by Uber itself. On the agenda at the STF, the general repercussion theme 1.291 could become national jurisprudence.
Uber argues that recognizing the link threatens the business model, obstructs innovation, and disrupts the mobility market in Brazil.
The rapporteur of the case, Minister Edson Fachin, has already stated that the STF needs to provide a definitive answer, as the issue affects millions of workers and users across the country.
“Either the Supreme Court decides soon, or legal uncertainty will overwhelm the app sector,” concluded Fachin.
And now? Can this ruling change the game and alter how apps operate in Brazil?

Seja o primeiro a reagir!