JUDICIAL RESPONSES TO OUTSOURCING: recent debates and trends

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Grillo, Sayonara
Data de Publicação: 2021
Outros Autores: de Lacerda Carelli, Rodrigo
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Caderno CRH
Texto Completo: https://periodicos.ufba.br/index.php/crh/article/view/45335
Resumo: The article examines the responses to the demands involving outsourcing in the post-labor reform scenario. Have the judgments of the Federal SupremeCourt (STF) – which rejected the allegations of unconstitutionality of the legislation, declared the lawfulness of outsourcing and overcame the distinction between peripheral and core business activities – put an end to the judicial debate? Using the methodological procedures of jurisprudential survey and documental analysis, with mapping of lawsuits judged in the last two years, we  examined the arguments in the litigations, investigating aboutthe modification in decision patterns. The research concludes that the controversies over fraud in outsourcing remain in dispute in the Labor Court, subject to the control of the Supreme Court, which presents contradictory positions in relation to this aspect. Another finding of the research is that the requirement of “economic capacity” is absent fromthe debate. The emergence of factual issues and the friction between the Labor Court and the STF point to the persistence of disputes in the judicial arena even after the new regulatory framework. 
id UFBA-7_833b17910f1b8cb987c0030639717392
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.periodicos.ufba.br:article/45335
network_acronym_str UFBA-7
network_name_str Caderno CRH
repository_id_str
spelling JUDICIAL RESPONSES TO OUTSOURCING: recent debates and trendsLES RÉPONSES JUDICIAIRES À L’EXTERNALISATION: débats récents et tendancesRESPOSTAS JUDICIAIS À TERCEIRIZAÇÃO: debates e tendências recentesDireito do trabalhoJustiça do Trabalhoreforma trabalhistaterceirizaçãoprecarizaçãoTerceirizaçãoLabour LawLabour JusticeLabor law reformOutsourcingPrecariousnessDroit du travailJustice du travailRéforme de la loi du travailExternalisationprécarisationThe article examines the responses to the demands involving outsourcing in the post-labor reform scenario. Have the judgments of the Federal SupremeCourt (STF) – which rejected the allegations of unconstitutionality of the legislation, declared the lawfulness of outsourcing and overcame the distinction between peripheral and core business activities – put an end to the judicial debate? Using the methodological procedures of jurisprudential survey and documental analysis, with mapping of lawsuits judged in the last two years, we  examined the arguments in the litigations, investigating aboutthe modification in decision patterns. The research concludes that the controversies over fraud in outsourcing remain in dispute in the Labor Court, subject to the control of the Supreme Court, which presents contradictory positions in relation to this aspect. Another finding of the research is that the requirement of “economic capacity” is absent fromthe debate. The emergence of factual issues and the friction between the Labor Court and the STF point to the persistence of disputes in the judicial arena even after the new regulatory framework. L’article examine les réponses aux demandes légales impliquant l’externalisation dans le scénario postréforme du travail. Les arrêts du Tribunal fédéral – qui ont rejeté les griefs d’inconstitutionnalité, déclaré la légalité de l’externalisation et  surmonté la distinction entre activités accessoires et finales – ont-ils mis fin au débat judiciaire? A partir d’uneenquête et d’une analyse documentaire, avec une cartographie des actions de travail jugées au coursdes deux dernières années, nous avons examiné les motifs des jugements, en enquêtant sur le changement des modèles de décision. La recherche conclut que les  controverses sur la fraude en matièred’externalisation et de sous-traitance restent en litige devant le Tribunal du travail, mais sous le contrôle du  Tribunal fédéral, qui a eu des positionscontradictoires sur ce point. Une autre conclusion de la recherche est que l’exigence de «capacité économique» est absente du débat judiciaire. L’émergence de questions factuelles et les frictions entre le tribunal du travail et le STF indiquent la persistance des litiges dans l’arène judiciaire, mêmeaprès le nouveau cadre réglementaire.O artigo examina as respostas às demandas que envolvem a terceirização no cenário pós-reforma trabalhista. Os julgamentos do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) – que rechaçou as alegações de inconstitucionalidade da legislação, declarou a licitude da terceirização e superou a distinção entre atividades empresariais acessórias e finalísticas – colocaram um ponto final no debate judicial? Utilizando os procedimentos metodológicos de levantamento jurisprudencial e análise documental, com mapeamento de ações julgadas no último biênio, examinamos os argumentos nos litígios, investigando acerca da modificação em padrões decisórios. A pesquisa conclui que as controvérsias sobre fraudes em terceirização permanecem em disputa na Justiça do Trabalho, submetida ao controle do Supremo, que apresenta posições contraditórias em relação a esse aspecto. Outro achado da pesquisa é que o requisito da “capacidade econômica” está ausente do debate. A emergência de questões fáticas, as fricções entre a Justiça do Trabalho e o Supremo e os argumentos sobre responsabilidade empresarial apontam para a persistência de disputas na arena judiciária mesmo após o novo marco regulatório.Universidade Federal da Bahia2021-12-05info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionArtigo avaliado pelos paresapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.ufba.br/index.php/crh/article/view/4533510.9771/ccrh.v34i0.45335Caderno CRH; v. 34 (2021): PUBLICAÇÃO CONTÍNUA; e0210351983-82390103-4979reponame:Caderno CRHinstname:Universidade Federal da Bahia (UFBA)instacron:UFBAporhttps://periodicos.ufba.br/index.php/crh/article/view/45335/25595Copyright (c) 2021 Caderno CRHhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessGrillo, Sayonarade Lacerda Carelli, Rodrigo2021-09-28T02:34:29Zoai:ojs.periodicos.ufba.br:article/45335Revistahttps://portalseer.ufba.br/index.php/crh/about/editorialPolicies#custom-0PUBhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phprevcrh@ufba.br||revcrh@ufba.br1983-82390103-4979opendoar:2021-09-28T02:34:29Caderno CRH - Universidade Federal da Bahia (UFBA)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv JUDICIAL RESPONSES TO OUTSOURCING: recent debates and trends
LES RÉPONSES JUDICIAIRES À L’EXTERNALISATION: débats récents et tendances
RESPOSTAS JUDICIAIS À TERCEIRIZAÇÃO: debates e tendências recentes
title JUDICIAL RESPONSES TO OUTSOURCING: recent debates and trends
spellingShingle JUDICIAL RESPONSES TO OUTSOURCING: recent debates and trends
Grillo, Sayonara
Direito do trabalho
Justiça do Trabalho
reforma trabalhista
terceirização
precarização
Terceirização
Labour Law
Labour Justice
Labor law reform
Outsourcing
Precariousness
Droit du travail
Justice du travail
Réforme de la loi du travail
Externalisation
précarisation
title_short JUDICIAL RESPONSES TO OUTSOURCING: recent debates and trends
title_full JUDICIAL RESPONSES TO OUTSOURCING: recent debates and trends
title_fullStr JUDICIAL RESPONSES TO OUTSOURCING: recent debates and trends
title_full_unstemmed JUDICIAL RESPONSES TO OUTSOURCING: recent debates and trends
title_sort JUDICIAL RESPONSES TO OUTSOURCING: recent debates and trends
author Grillo, Sayonara
author_facet Grillo, Sayonara
de Lacerda Carelli, Rodrigo
author_role author
author2 de Lacerda Carelli, Rodrigo
author2_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Grillo, Sayonara
de Lacerda Carelli, Rodrigo
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Direito do trabalho
Justiça do Trabalho
reforma trabalhista
terceirização
precarização
Terceirização
Labour Law
Labour Justice
Labor law reform
Outsourcing
Precariousness
Droit du travail
Justice du travail
Réforme de la loi du travail
Externalisation
précarisation
topic Direito do trabalho
Justiça do Trabalho
reforma trabalhista
terceirização
precarização
Terceirização
Labour Law
Labour Justice
Labor law reform
Outsourcing
Precariousness
Droit du travail
Justice du travail
Réforme de la loi du travail
Externalisation
précarisation
description The article examines the responses to the demands involving outsourcing in the post-labor reform scenario. Have the judgments of the Federal SupremeCourt (STF) – which rejected the allegations of unconstitutionality of the legislation, declared the lawfulness of outsourcing and overcame the distinction between peripheral and core business activities – put an end to the judicial debate? Using the methodological procedures of jurisprudential survey and documental analysis, with mapping of lawsuits judged in the last two years, we  examined the arguments in the litigations, investigating aboutthe modification in decision patterns. The research concludes that the controversies over fraud in outsourcing remain in dispute in the Labor Court, subject to the control of the Supreme Court, which presents contradictory positions in relation to this aspect. Another finding of the research is that the requirement of “economic capacity” is absent fromthe debate. The emergence of factual issues and the friction between the Labor Court and the STF point to the persistence of disputes in the judicial arena even after the new regulatory framework. 
publishDate 2021
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2021-12-05
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
Artigo avaliado pelos pares
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://periodicos.ufba.br/index.php/crh/article/view/45335
10.9771/ccrh.v34i0.45335
url https://periodicos.ufba.br/index.php/crh/article/view/45335
identifier_str_mv 10.9771/ccrh.v34i0.45335
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://periodicos.ufba.br/index.php/crh/article/view/45335/25595
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2021 Caderno CRH
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2021 Caderno CRH
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Federal da Bahia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Federal da Bahia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Caderno CRH; v. 34 (2021): PUBLICAÇÃO CONTÍNUA; e021035
1983-8239
0103-4979
reponame:Caderno CRH
instname:Universidade Federal da Bahia (UFBA)
instacron:UFBA
instname_str Universidade Federal da Bahia (UFBA)
instacron_str UFBA
institution UFBA
reponame_str Caderno CRH
collection Caderno CRH
repository.name.fl_str_mv Caderno CRH - Universidade Federal da Bahia (UFBA)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv revcrh@ufba.br||revcrh@ufba.br
_version_ 1799699056768843776