Banca de DEFESA: LUIZ GUSTAVO SILVA ALMEIDA

Uma banca de DEFESA de MESTRADO foi cadastrada pelo programa.
STUDENT : LUIZ GUSTAVO SILVA ALMEIDA
DATE: 05/11/2026
TIME: 09:00
LOCAL: https://teams.microsoft.com/meet/2940937953675815?p=kYbacxL90u31IliJdO
TITLE:

OUTSOURCING AND STRICT ADHERENCE: THE SUPREME COURT RULINGS IN COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE SUPERIOR LABOR COURT DECISIONS (2019-2025)

KEY WORDS:

constitutional complaint; labour outsourcing; strict adherence; system of precedents

PAGES: 149
BIG AREA: Ciências Sociais Aplicadas
AREA: Direito
SUMMARY:

This dissertation examines the panel decisions rendered by the Brazilian Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal) in constitutional complaints grounded on Arguição de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental No. 324 (claim of non-compliance with a fundamental precept) and on General Repercussion Theme 725 (Extraordinary Appeal No. 958,252), both decided on 30 August 2018, which established the lawfulness of outsourcing any business activity. The guiding question is the extent to which those decisions examine the adherence between the challenged act and the ratio decidendi of the invoked precedents, a requirement that conditions the admissibility of the complaint and which the Code of Civil Procedure reinforces in Articles 489, § 1, items V and VI, and 988, § 4. The method is documentary and empirical. Two searches of the Court’s public case-law portal, restricted to the complaint docket, covering judgments delivered from 30 August 2018 and published until 31 December 2025, produced a universe of 786 decisions, from which four cumulative inclusion criteria yielded a sample of 71 decisions, read in full and coded under a protocol that conditions every interpretive classification on the literal transcription of the passage supporting it, with human validation by sampling. Three findings stand out. The share of the litigation actually concerning outsourcing in the strict sense against acts of the Superior Labour Court fell from 18.2% to 1.1% between 2020 and 2025, while the overall volume nearly doubled, so that the precedent came to operate as grounds for disputes over questions it had not decided. Where the confrontation between case and precedent is indispensable to the holding, the Court articulates it expressly in 86.5% of the decisions, with no relevant asymmetry between granting and denying, which does not confirm the hypothesis of an unequal distribution of the argumentative burden; the reasoning deficit appears in both directions, in 4 of the 19 decisions that deny strict adherence and in 3 of the 23 that affirm it, and all seven were decided by majority, so that it follows the division of the panel rather than the direction of the outcome. In 18.6% of the decisions the reasoning adopted by the panel relied on a precedent that the decision does not record as having been invoked by the complainant, a proportion that rises to 25.7% once additions made in dissenting opinions are also counted. It is concluded that the instrument created to preserve the authority of two precedents on outsourcing has increasingly been used to litigate what those precedents did not decide.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Externo à Instituição - FÁBIO PORTELA LOPES DE ALMEIDA - TST
Interno - 1996968 - HENRIQUE ARAUJO COSTA
Externo à Instituição (Suplente) - HENRIQUE SMIDT SIMON - UNICEUB
Presidente - 2176074 - WILSON ROBERTO THEODORO FILHO