But according to experts heard by the G1, this understanding has been misunderstood. For them, it is up to the Labor Court to decide on labor issues involving passenger transport applications.
The case judged by the STJ was that of a driver from Poços de Caldas (MG) who requested the reactivation of his account by Uber.
The lower court judge sent the case to the labor court, and a conflict of jurisdiction was filed with the STJ to decide which of the two judges the case would be.
In the STJ, the Second Section, which deals with civil law, held that it would fall to the ordinary court. In this decision, the ministers dismissed the existence of employment relationship between the driver and the company.
“The employment relationship requires the assumptions of personality, habituality, subordination and onerity. In the absence of any of these assumptions, the work is characterized as autonomous or occasional ”, understood the STJ.
The rapporteur, Minister Moura Ribeiro, says that Uber acts through an application that brings together drivers drivers and customers, and that drivers are individual entrepreneurs, with no employment relationship with the company that owns the platform.
He also said that they have no hierarchical relationship and "their services are provided eventually, without pre-established hours and do not receive fixed salary, which makes the employment relationship between the parties uncharacteristic."
The labor situation of Uber application drivers
Civil Justice x Labor Justice
For experts, the ruling of the Supreme Court does not mean that the Court dismissed the employment relationship between the drivers of the application and Uber because, according to them, this issue is up to the Labor Court to decide, on a case by case basis. The STJ only understood that, in that specific case, the issue discussed was not labor, they assess.
Labor law attorneys argue that the ruling should be observed within the context of the lawsuit that reached the STJ: that of a driver wishing to nullify losses by suspending his account and claiming compensation for non-pecuniary damages, such as 13th salary and vacation.
“The STJ has only judged a conflict of jurisdiction. It did not merit the issue of employment, ”says Décio Daidone Júnior, an expert in labor law, a partner at ASBZ Advogados.
“When he (rapporteur) spoke about the characteristics of employment, subordination, etc., he said to say that this is not being discussed,” he says.
“This decision is being misinterpreted,” says André Ribeiro, a labor partner at Dias Carneiro Advogados.
"The decision expressly speaks in the vote of the rapporteur that, as there is no labor claim involved in the action, the jurisdiction is the civil justice," he says.
“In this sense, this decision is not a precedent preventing Uber drivers or any service platform worker from discussing a possible employment relationship in the Labor Court. On the contrary, ”added Ribeiro.
Attorney Carlos Eduardo Ambiel, a labor law specialist at Ambiel, Mansur, Belfiore and Malta, explains that the jurisdiction to judge labor relations lies with the Labor Court, including employment relations.
“But in this matter that went to the STJ, the focus was different. Only to delimit the jurisdiction was that the relationship was interpreted as civil, ”he says.
"This does not depart from the jurisdiction of the Labor Court when the discussion is whether the driver's relationship is employment or not," he said.
"And obviously, if the discussion raises the question of whether or not there is a driver's employment relationship, it seems to me that the competence will be the Labor Court," he said.