STF Schedules Key Rulings on App-Worker Status and R$17bn Funrural Case

What the STF's Second-Half Labour Docket Actually Contains

Brazil's Supreme Federal Court (STF) has packed its second-half calendar with labour and social-security cases that could change how app-based work is classified and how much agribusiness owes in rural-worker contributions.

The most closely watched hearing, set for the 27th, is the so-called 'uberização' case (Theme 1291): whether drivers on digital platforms have an employment relationship with the companies. The same session will hear a related complaint from delivery company Rappi (RCL 64018). The Uber case (RE 1446336) is an appeal against a TST panel ruling that recognised an employment relationship between the company and a driver. The cases were pulled from June's calendar after worker advocates asked the court to consider ILO Convention No. 193 on platform work. The convention has not been ratified by Brazil, but the labour prosecutor's office and public defenders argue the court can still take it into account.

The court also returns to the unfinished Funrural case (ADI 4395). Its merits were decided in 2022, when six of 11 justices found the contribution levied on gross rural revenue constitutional. Left open was 'sub-rogação': whether the company buying rural produce can be required to collect and pay the contribution on behalf of an individual producer. The fiscal-risk annex to this year's Budget Guidelines Law puts the exposure at R$17.2bn, revised down from the R$20bn estimated in 2023. Abrafrigo, the meat industry association, originally challenged the charge; Abiarroz, the rice industry group, is an interested party.

One day before the app-worker hearing, the plenary will take up criteria for waiving court fees in labour cases, after Justice Edson Fachin pulled the matter from the virtual chamber. Later in the half, the court is expected to resume the 'pejotização' case on hiring employees through legal entities, plus a challenge to the Labour Ministry's new psychosocial-risk rules (ADPF 1316).

Why the Uberisation Ruling Could Redraw Brazil's Gig-Economy Map

Where Uber and Rappi Fit in the Platform-Work Debate

Theme 1291 is a general-repercussion case, meaning its holding will bind lower courts nationwide on whether platform drivers are employees. A flat 'yes' would force Uber, Rappi and their rivals to absorb payroll taxes, benefits and severance costs across large contractor fleets. A flat 'no' would preserve the current model but could face political pressure.

Lawyers quoted by Valor expect a third path: the court sets parameters and leaves case-by-case application to lower courts. Arnaldo Pipek, a partner at Pipek Advogados, says ILO Convention No. 193 does not impose objective tests but reinforces the 'primacy of reality' principle already used by Brazilian labour courts — meaning actual working conditions, not contract labels, would decide each case. That outcome would reduce, but not eliminate, legal uncertainty for platforms.

The R$17.2bn Question Hiding in Funrural

The Funrural case is less about the constitutionality of the contribution — settled 6–5 in 2022 — than about who is on the hook for decades of uncollected payments. Maurício Faro, the BMA Advogados lawyer defending Abiarroz, notes that corporate buyers of rural produce did not withhold the contributions for years and then faced tax infractions; even companies that entered the Funrural tax-amnesty programme are still disputing the sub-rogação issue.

If the STF declares sub-rogação unconstitutional, buyers escape liability for what was not collected, and the R$17.2bn fiscal-risk estimate would lose much of its force. If it upholds the mechanism, the food-processing and meatpacking sectors could face large retroactive bills. Either way, the ruling will rewrite expectations built into the budget law's risk annex.

Fee Waivers, Pejotização and Psychosocial Rules: A Broader Rewiring

The court-fee case (brought by Consif) tests the 2017 labour reform's limits on free access to justice. Justice Gilmar Mendes's draft would presume inability to pay up to R$5,000 — the income-tax exemption level — and require anyone earning more to show concrete proof of hardship. Justice Fachin, who requested the plenary hearing, had aligned with TST precedent that a simple declaration of poverty suffices. The choice affects how many 'adventurous' claims are filed and who bears the cost of labour litigation.

The pejotização case has become urgent since Justice Mendes lifted a suspension that had frozen more than 61,000 cases nationwide. Employers expect PJ contracts to be accepted unless fraud or defective consent is proven, while the competence of the labour courts and the burden of proof remain contested. Separately, Justice André Mendonça's injunction has already suspended sanctions for companies that missed the deadline to comply with the ministry's new psychosocial-risk regulation, but the full court has yet to rule on ADPF 1316, leaving workplace safety obligations in limbo.

What Companies, Workers and Litigants Should Watch Before the Rulings

Until the rulings land, the relevant players can prepare for the scenarios the docket makes plausible:

• Platforms (Uber, Rappi and peers): if the STF endorses case-by-case analysis under the primacy-of-reality principle, audit how drivers and delivery workers actually work — scheduling, monitoring, pay structure — ahead of the 27th hearing; a blanket employment ruling would make those details the basis for reclassification claims.
• Buyers of rural production and food-industry groups: review outstanding Funrural infraction notices and any Refis positions before the sub-rogação ruling — the budget risk annex pegs the disputed exposure at R$17.2bn.
• Employers in labour disputes: if Gilmar Mendes's R$5,000 threshold wins, workers earning above that level must prove inability to pay court costs; factor that into settlement and litigation strategy once the plenary votes.
• Companies hiring via PJ (pejotização): with more than 61,000 suspended cases released in June, audit contract terms for signs of subordination or fraud before the full court rules on validity and burden of proof.
• Workplace-safety teams: the NR-1 psychosocial-risk rules remain suspended for now by Justice Mendonça's injunction, so do not treat them as active until ADPF 1316 is decided.