TSTSeptember 22, 2026· 4 min read

TST denies an outsourced worker the confinement premium set out in a collective agreement signed only by the contracting company

In a single-judge ruling, the rapporteur reversed a TRT-11 decision and rejected the automatic extension of a benefit from the contracting company's collective bargaining instrument to an employee of an outsourced company, citing the STF's binding precedent Tema 383. The ruling is individual and can still be reviewed on appeal.

In case No. 512-93.2021.5.11.0008, the rapporteur, a Justice of Brazil's Superior Labor Court (TST), denied, in a single-judge ruling, the extension of a confinement premium to an outsourced worker who provided services to Petrobras. The ruling reversed a decision of the Regional Labor Court of the 11th Region (TRT-11), which had granted the outsourced worker the premium based on a collective bargaining agreement or convention signed between the contracting company and its category's union.

The legal basis: free enterprise and STF Tema 383

For the rapporteur, a collective bargaining instrument negotiated exclusively between the contracting company and its own category's union does not automatically extend to employees of outsourced companies, which have their own employer, category and collective bargaining instrument. Extending the benefit without a specific provision in the service provider's own collective bargaining instrument would, according to the ruling, violate the free enterprise and bargaining autonomy of the parties that actually entered into the agreement, an understanding grounded in the STF's binding precedent Tema 383 on the limits of collective bargaining.

Precedential weight: single-judge rulingBecause this is an individual ruling by the rapporteur, not a decision of a panel (Turma or SDI), the understanding is subject to interlocutory appeal and can be reviewed. It does not, for now, represent settled TST case law on the issue, but it does signal the court's current reading on parity of benefits between outsourced and directly hired employees.

What this means for benefits policy

The case illustrates a recurring point in operations that rely heavily on outsourcing: benefits set out in the contracting company's collective bargaining instrument, such as sector-specific hazard premiums, do not automatically extend to outsourced workers merely because they work side by side with directly hired employees in the same environment. Extension depends on a specific provision in the service provider's own collective bargaining instrument, a specific contractual clause, or a court ruling on the individual case, and contracting companies should not presume automatic parity of benefits without that analysis.

💡 How technology helps

Comparing the rights set out in the contracting company's and the service provider's collective bargaining instruments is part of the scope of our Compliance, Audit & Outsourced-Workforce Management service, which identifies parity gaps before they become a liability. For a first, free read on your scenario, use the Nexus Free Risk Check.

Has your company already compared the premiums set out in its own collective bargaining instrument with those the contracting company grants its directly hired employees in the same work environment?