Economic group. The fact that two companies have the same partners and the same address does not mean that they belong to the same economic group. Based on this rule created by the labor reform, the 18th Labor Court of Rio de Janeiro denied a claim by a former employee of one of them.
Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Consolidation of Labor Laws (CLT) establishes that “whenever one or more companies, even though each of them has its own legal personality, are under the direction, control, or administration of another, or even when, while each retains its autonomy, they form part of an economic group, they shall be jointly and severally liable for the obligations arising from the employment relationship.”
Economic group
With only this mention of an economic group, the rule allowed one to conclude that two companies with the same partners belonged to the same economic group. However, the labor reform (Law 13,467/2017) inserted paragraph 3 into article 2 of the CLT to establish that this is not enough to configure a corporate conglomerate.
For Judge Marcos Dias de Castro, administrative and financial control between the companies was not proven.
“The mere identity of partners does not characterize an economic group, since three requirements are necessary for the configuration of a group, namely: the demonstration of integrated interest, the effective communion of interests, and the joint action of the companies comprising it (article 2, paragraph 3, of the CLT, added by Law 13,467/2017).”
The new guidance brings greater legal certainty among companies, since one should not assume the debts of another.
Read also:
The annual discharge of labor rights is an innovation of the labor reform
Labor reform: outsourcing, a competitiveness factor for family businesses
Source: Conjur
← Back to blog