Investidor Institucional has published an article on the ruling on Issue 24, scheduled to take place at the Superior Labour Court (TST) next Monday, 23 March, which addresses whether the labour courts have jurisdiction to hear claims for compensation brought by members of deficit-ridden supplementary pension schemes against the sponsoring companies.
Currently, the prevailing view is that claims involving benefits and disputes between participants and pension providers should be heard by the ordinary courts rather than the labour courts. The article notes that the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts was established by the STF in 2013, in the ruling known as ‘leading case 190’, which had general repercussions and established the principle that supplementary pensions are independent of the employment contract. However, in recent years, the Superior Labour Court (TST) has sought to broaden the scope for a different interpretation, arguing that certain claims for compensation are not brought against the pension fund, but against the sponsoring employer. Consequently, some specific cases could be heard by the labour courts.
The publication states that the Association of Private-Sector Pension Funds (Apep) fears that this change could create legal uncertainty and lead to sponsors being automatically held liable for the financial failure of the schemes. It highlights that Bocater Advogados, acting in the case as amicus curiae, argues that pension funds are legally autonomous from the sponsor.
“The firm’s legal opinion, signed by lawyers Flavio Martins Rodrigues, Fernanda Rosa and others, maintains that the EFPC is a specific legal entity, with its own governance and separate assets, whose management must serve the participants and the plan, not the sponsor. According to the firm, even when directors are appointed by the company, they do not act as representatives of the company, but as administrators of the entity,” the report states.