Commerce businesspeople go to the STF to postpone the end of the 6x1 scale to 2027

The CNC (National Confederation of Commerce in Goods, Services and Tourism) filed an ADI (Direct Action of Unconstitutionality) with the STF (Supreme Federal Court) to postpone the end of the 6x1 scale to December 2027.

Businesspeople in the sector are asking the Supreme Court to declare six points of constitutional amendment 141 unconstitutional, which implements the 5x2 scale, with two days of paid weekly rest, and reduces working hours from 44 hours a week to 42 hours from December 16th of this year.

The main request is for the new working hours and the new scale, which would come into effect 60 days after the publication of the amendment, to be postponed to December 16, 2027. Furthermore, they ask that the postponement of the new phase, when working hours should fall to 40 hours per week, remain until December 2028. Under the current rule, the final reduction will be in December 2027.

According to the CNC, the entity is not against the end of the 6x1 scale, but the understanding is that the PEC (proposed amendment to the Constitution) for the end of the 6x1 scale established new constitutional parameters to the detriment of others already in force in the Constitution itself, which would be unconstitutional.

"The Constitution can establish new rights and modify the parameters of labor relations, but the implementation of these changes is not exempt from compliance with the constitutional limits that govern the exercise of the power of reform, especially when their effects affect collective autonomy, legal security and legitimate trust", says the ADI.

The request is for the Supreme Court to grant an injunction overturning the validity of the end of the 6x1 in 2026, in a decision taken by a single minister, without the case needing to go to the court's plenary, and for the ministers to meet only to debate the other points. The entity also requests that the clauses of collective conventions and agreements with the current journey are not invalidated within 60 days, as provided for in the amendment.

The other points that the confederation contests are the need for union negotiations to implement the new working hours, the differentiated treatment for micro and small businesses, the adaptation period of up to one year for companies that contract with the public authorities and the exclusion of employees from the rule of working hours control for overemployed people.

Among the companies' arguments is that it would not be possible to overturn only the clauses in collective labor conventions and agreements that deal with working hours and schedules. The understanding is that the entire document should be invalidated and new rules redefined and re-discussed with a compensation provision for the end of the 6x1 scale.

Furthermore, they also understand that a convention or collective agreement that has already been negotiated cannot be modified during its validity, which would be unconstitutional, even under collective negotiation.

"What is questioned is the possibility of the new constitutional regime determining the early termination of provisions forming part of current collective instruments, without ensuring adequate opportunity for the coordinated review of reciprocally adjusted obligations and counterparts", says the action.

"Collective agreements and conventions do not constitute simple groupings of independent clauses. In many sectors of economic activity, provisions relating to working hours are linked to work schedules, compensation systems, shifts, additional payments, team organization and other conditions negotiated between employers and trade unions," the entities state.

"An isolated change to one of these conditions may have repercussions on the balance of the entire negotiating set, making it necessary to review the related provisions", says the confederation in another point of the action.

Antonio Galvão Peres, lawyer and doctor in labor law from USP (University of São Paulo), says that a constitutional amendment can be unconstitutional when it violates an essential clause of the Constitution. According to him, the amendment would be "violating freedom of association and freedom of collective bargaining by creating so many restrictions for negotiation." And the convention would be a "perfect legal act".

Other principles that would be violated, according to him, are those of equality and isonomy.

Hélio Zylberstajn, senior professor at USP and economist responsible for the Fipe Salariometer (Fundação Instituto de Pesquisas Econômicas), carried out a survey of 37 thousand negotiations between July 2024 and July 2025, showing that 81% of them had clauses on working hours, with an average of five per document. According to the professor, this shows the effects that the change in the journey will bring.

Professor Eduardo Gomes Gaelzer is a lawyer, researcher at Getrab (Study Group on Contemporary Labor Law and Social Security), at USP, and believes there will be another point of unconstitutionality if there is no collective negotiation for the 42-hour transition.

This is because those who have a six-day working day will stop working for six days and these two hours worked on Saturdays, for example, must be compensated during the week, without being paid as overtime.

"These possibilities, however, do not eliminate the need for compatibility between the general rule established by the constitutional amendment and the limits set out in the constitutional text itself. The existence of compensation mechanisms does not resolve, in itself, a possible incompatibility in the way the proposal organizes the weekly working hours and rest days", he states.