On November 12, 2026, Justice Flávio Dino of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) partially granted the preliminary injunctions in Direct Unconstitutionality Actions (ADIs) 8,041 and 8,042. The actions challenge provisions of Constitutional Amendment 141/26 (EC 141).

The decision did not postpone the effective date of EC 141, but it addressed contradictions and gaps that have sparked significant debate.

42-hour workweek and 8 hours and 24 minutes per day


In our previous article, we noted that collective bargaining was not the only alternative for implementing the 42-hour workweek.

The decision followed the same line of reasoning. Collective bargaining remains the preferred instrument. However, if no agreement or collective bargaining agreement is reached by December 15, 2026, authorizing the extension of the daily workday to 8 hours and 24 minutes, this extension is authorized until December 15, 2027—without the 24 minutes being considered overtime.

With this, the justice rejected the view that the lack of negotiation would lead to the automatic application of the 40-hour limit.

In this regard, individual agreements for compensating hours within the same month or the same semester (time bank), which are based on a 42-hour workweek, are also valid.

Collective Agreements and Countermeasures


According to Constitutional Amendment 141, provisions in collective bargaining agreements regarding working hours and paid weekly rest that are incompatible with the new rules will cease to be effective on December 16, 2026.

The decision confirmed this point but introduced a new provision: companies and unions will have 90 days, starting on December 16, 2026, to renegotiate the compensatory measures provided for in the current agreements.

If no renegotiation takes place:

  • the incompatible provisions will remain void;
  • the remaining clauses remain in effect until the end of the collective bargaining agreement; and
  • the benefits are not automatically terminated.

Wage Neutrality and Personal Benefits


The decision reinforces that the reduction in working hours and the second rest period must respect the wage neutrality established by Article 2 of Constitutional Amendment 141, including with regard to minimum wages. In doing so, it clarified an important point regarding the impact of this guarantee on new hires.

According to the justice, the preservation of wages for employees whose workweek has been reduced is not, in and of itself, grounds for claims seeking wage parity for workers hired under different pay conditions with a shorter workweek.

The decision did not expressly address the concept of “personal advantage,” which has already been recognized by the Superior Labor Court (TST). However, it adopts the same reasoning as TST Precedent No. 6, which precludes wage equalization when the difference stems from a personal advantage. In practice, a new hire may have a lower monthly salary than that of a current employee whose workweek was reduced without a reduction in salary, without this giving rise to a right to equal pay.

However, the decision establishes that the conditions for ensuring wage neutrality must be set by law or decree.

As for minimum wages, the decision allows for new hires to be paid minimum wages that are proportionally lower than those of current employees.

This is because the justice ruled that the implementation of the new workweek regime must observe the wage neutrality guaranteed by Article 2 of Constitutional Amendment 141, “including with regard to minimum wages,” and that the preservation of the compensation of employees affected by the reduction in working hours does not, in and of itself, constitute grounds for claims of wage equalization by workers hired under different compensation terms.

It is expected that collective bargaining agreements to be negotiated will begin to include new minimum wage levels that are proportionally lower than the current ones.

Compensatory Rest Period Arrangements


Constitutional Amendment 141 permits, “exceptionally,” compensatory rest arrangements under collective bargaining agreements, provided that two days of rest per week are guaranteed within the same month and at least one day of rest is guaranteed each week.

In our previous article, we noted that these restrictions would make it difficult to schedule shifts in industries that operate seven days a week.

The decision resolved both issues.

First, it clarified that the term “exceptionally” refers to the manner in which days off are taken, and not to the requirement of an exceptional activity. Thus, any company may negotiate compensatory arrangements.

Second, it clarified that the weekly and monthly limits may be collectively negotiated, provided that the average of two weekly rest days is maintained during the negotiated compensation period.

There is also a transition rule. During the first 90 days, starting December 16, 2026, if collective bargaining is demonstrably unsuccessful, an administrative order establishing compensation rules may be issued. After this period, compensation will only be possible through collective bargaining.

Sector-Specific Regimes


Constitutional Amendment 141 establishes that the law “may” provide for cases and conditions in which working hours and paid weekly rest days may be subject to different regimes, provided the new rules are respected.

The decision clarified that this possibility is, in fact, a legislative obligation. Therefore, it ruled that the National Congress must regulate the matter within 180 days from the publication of the decision.

Microenterprises and Small Businesses


Constitutional Amendment 141 provides that a complementary law may establish transitional measures to mitigate the impacts of the amendment on microenterprises, small businesses, and individual microentrepreneurs, subject to the maintenance of employment levels.

The decision recognized that this possibility is also a duty and set the same 180-day deadline, starting from the publication of the decision, for the National Congress to regulate the matter.

Contracts with the Public Administration


According to Constitutional Amendment 141, in contracts with direct and indirect public administration entities involving the direct employment of labor, the reduction in working hours will only apply after a contractual amendment to maintain economic and financial balance, to be formalized within one year.

The justice held that a one-year adjustment period—compared to two months for other employers—creates unjustified disparities, including within the same company that serves both public and private clients.

Instead of extending the adjustment period for other employers—which would delay the effective date of the new rules—the decision reduced the adjustment period for public contracts from one year to 180 days from the publication of Constitutional Amendment 141. For other companies, the two-month period was maintained.

Employees of State-Owned Enterprises


Constitutional Amendment 141 excluded public-sector employees from the regime applicable to employees with a college degree and compensation equal to or greater than 2.5 times the ceiling of the General Social Security System (RGPS).

The decision corrected the distortion affecting public enterprises and mixed-capital companies that engage in economic activities in a competitive market. Employees of these companies who meet the education and compensation requirements will now receive the same treatment as those in the private sector, as provided for in Article 173, § 1, II, of the Federal Constitution.

What Still Needs to Be Addressed


Some issues remain unresolved:

  • Decree on wage neutrality: the conditions for compliance with wage neutrality will be defined by law or decree.
  • Impact of the second DSR on variable pay: the decision did not address the impact of the second rest day on regular overtime and commissions during the paid weekly rest period (DSR). As we explained in the previous article, with two rest days per week, the number of DSR days in a month increases from about four to eight. Under the usual formula, the impact tends to more than double, with a ripple effect on vacation pay, the 13th-month salary, FGTS, and severance pay. We expect the decree to address this issue as well.
  • Divisor for calculating overtime: the decision did not address the divisor applicable to the new 42- and 40-hour workweeks. However, as noted in our previous article, we believe that the divisor for the hourly wage—currently 220 for those working a 44-hour workweek—will become 200 under the 40-hour workweek, in accordance with the standard already adopted by the Superior Labor Court (TST) in Precedent 431. For the 42-hour workweek, by the same logic, we believe the divisor will become 210.
  • Difference in contract terms between the public and private sectors: reducing the term of administrative contracts from 12 months to 180 days narrows the gap, but does not eliminate it. In our assessment, the unconstitutionality of this distinction—due to a violation of the principle of equal treatment and free competition—has not been resolved. We hope that the Full Court of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) will address this issue when reviewing the decision. One possible solution would be to extend the same 180-day term applicable to public contracts to private employers.

Impact of the Decision and Next Steps


The decision takes effect immediately for everyone, but it will still be reviewed by the STF Plenary, which may uphold or modify it.

Companies should monitor the proceedings before the STF Plenary—which have already begun—and the publication of the decree regulating Constitutional Amendment 141, expected next Tuesday, November 17.

Companies should also pay close attention to the deadlines set by the decision:

  • 90 days, starting on December 16, 2026, to renegotiate the terms set forth in current collective bargaining agreements; during this period, an administrative order may also be issued establishing rules for compensating days off if collective bargaining is demonstrably unsuccessful;
  • 180 days, counted from the publication of the decision, for the National Congress to establish sector-specific regimes and transitional measures for microenterprises, small businesses, and individual microentrepreneurs; and
  • 180 days from the publication of Constitutional Amendment 141 for the amendment of contracts with the Public Administration, while the two-month deadline remains in effect for other companies.

Our Labor Law team is monitoring developments regarding Constitutional Amendment 141 and is available to assist companies in adapting to the new rules. Follow our publications on the Legal Intelligence portal and contact us for more information.