On August 17, 2026, the Regional Labor Court of the 2nd Region (“TRT-2”) ordered the suspension of all cases pending in the second instance that address the validity of a collective agreement that eliminates, reduces, or alters the basis for calculating the apprentice quota provided for in Article 429 of the CLT and Article 52, caput and sole paragraph, of Decree No. 9,579/2018.
This measure stems from the admission of Motion for the Resolution of Repetitive Claims (“IRDR”) No. 19 by the Specialized Subsection for the Unification of Regional Case Law I, at a session held on August 13, 2026, with a suspension order issued by the administrative vice president, Appellate Judge Antero Arantes Martins.
What changes with the suspension?
Until the IRDR 19 is decided, the appeals pending in the second instance of the TRT-2 that involve this specific issue are stayed, pending the establishment of a binding legal precedent for the entire Region.
The ruling to be issued will uniformly determine whether provisions in collective bargaining agreements or collective agreements may reduce, eliminate, or alter the calculation basis used to determine the minimum quota of apprentices —an issue that currently divides the panels of the TRT-2 itself, with conflicting decisions regarding the validity of these clauses.
| INCIDENT | PROCESS | DETERMINATION |
| IRDR 19 | 1011665-43.2025.5.02.0000 | Suspension of second-instance proceedings on this matter |
| Admissions Session | 13/08/2026 | Specialized Subsection on the Standardization of Regional Case Law I |
| Suspension Order | Judge Antero Arantes Martins | Administrative Vice Presidency of the TRT-2 |
Scope of the Suspension at the TRT-2
The suspension applies exclusively to cases pending in the second instance of the TRT-2, that is, ordinary appeals, interlocutory appeals, and other appeals already assigned to the Court’s panels and collegiate bodies throughout the entire territorial jurisdiction of the 2nd Region (Greater São Paulo, Baixada Santista, Vale do Ribeira, and neighboring regions).
The suspension does not apply to cases still pending in the Labor Courts (first instance), nor to Public Civil Actions (“ACPs”) filed by the Labor Prosecutor’s Office based on other facts or claims. Companies with pending appeals on this matter should check with their attorneys to ensure that the suspension has been properly recorded in the PJe system, in accordance with the NUGEPNAC Guide to Suspension Proceedings.
Three points to keep in mind:
1. Immediate impact on ongoing projects
Companies that are currently challenging, in an appeal before the second-instance division of TRT-2, the validity of a collective bargaining clause that reduces the calculation basis for the apprentice quota should monitor the status of the proceedings and confirm the filing of the motion to stay the case, thereby avoiding surprises regarding deadlines and the resumption of proceedings after the IRDR is decided.
The outcome of this case will be binding on all adjudicating bodies of the TRT-2, permanently altering the risk landscape for companies that currently rely on such contractual clauses.
2. The proposal may require a review of the apprentice quota—and other statutory quotas
Regardless of the outcome of the IRDR, this issue highlights the need for companies to periodically review their calculation of the training quota, correctly taking into account the positions that require vocational training, the exclusions set forth in MTE Ordinance No. 1/2025, and the history of unfavorable rulings regarding exclusions agreed upon solely in collective bargaining agreements.
The same care applies to other statutory quotas that also depend on the correct definition of the calculation basis for the workforce, such as the quota for people with disabilities provided for in Article 93 of Law No. 8,213/91, which is also subject to recurring inspections by the Ministry of Labor and Employment.
3. Consequences of noncompliance: inspections, the Public Ministry of Labor (MPT), and individual lawsuits
Failure to comply with the apprenticeship quota —whether due to a failure to hire apprentices or to the adoption of exclusion criteria in the calculation basis that were later deemed invalid—can have consequences on several fronts: administrative penalties and fines imposed by the Ministry of Labor and Employment (“MTE”); the filing of a public civil action by the Public Prosecutor’s Office for Labor Matters (“MPT”), seeking an order to hire, the rectification of procedures, and compensation for collective moral damages—which, in cases already adjudicated by the TRT-2 itself, have ranged around R$ 100,000; and repercussions in individual labor claims that incidentally challenge the validity of the applicable collective bargaining clauses, regardless of the outcome of the IRDR.
The adoption of the binding precedent by the TRT-2 is likely to standardize this situation, but it does not eliminate the risk of fines and lawsuits already in progress.
Key Considerations for Businesses
Given this situation, it is recommended that companies:
① Review the calculation of the apprenticeship quota, function by function, in light of MTE Ordinance No. 1/2025 and the exclusions provided for therein;
② identify , in the applicable collective bargaining agreements, any provisions that reduce, eliminate, or alter the basis for calculating the contribution, assessing the risk of fines and lawsuits while the interpretation of IRDR 19 remains unresolved;
③ verify , in the cases currently pending before the second instance of the TRT-2 that address this matter, whether the suspension notice provided for in the NUGEPNAC Guide has been entered;
④ Take advantage of the review to also reassess the quota for people with disabilities and other legal obligations that depend on the correct determination of the calculation basis for the workforce;
⑤ Monitor developments regarding IRDR 19 and the publication of the legal opinion, which is expected to guide companies’ defense and labor compliance strategies.
The Labor Law Team at the law firm Araújo e Policastro Advogados is available to answer any questions.
Authors:
Ana Lúcia Pinke Ribeiro de Paiva – apinke@araujopolicastro.com.br
Marcos Rafael Carneiro – mcarneiro@araujopolicastro.com.br