Tendências do direito processual do trabalho e a tutela dos interesses difusos

Abstract

Talking about the tendency of the procedural right of work is not, it may seem at first glance, do futurology exercise, but check the inclinations and current propensities revealed, according to the language of semiotics, by the sign genre of which species are the indices, signs or indications. Therefore, following in the footsteps of Wagner D. Giglio (1), it is possible to identify, at this end century, at least five trends that revolve around procedural law, in particular general, and procedural labor law in particular. The first tendency is to summarize. It is manifested by the proliferation of overviews, enunciations, precedents and jurisprudential guidelines of the TST and some Courts Regions, translating the intention to partially adapt our positivist system Roman-Germanic to that of the sociological jurisprudence of common law values (judicial precedents). Another manifestation of this trend is the adoption of so-called binding overviews that so many debates have been raising within the legal community national. The second trend is autonomist. Its object is basically to settle, through the creation of its own institutes and principles, the foundations and autonomy of the Procedural Labor Law in the face of Civil Procedural Law. Exemplify yourself with the idea, often failed, of the elaboration of a work process code. The third trend is technicist, which is opposed to autonomist. Calls for bringing the labor process closer to the techniques of Civil Procedural Law, making it, to some extent, more formal. Examples of this trend are the subpoena to present a list of witnesses, prior defense and reply to the response, figures from the civil proceedings that barely adapt to the labor procedure, Statement 74 of the TST, equalization of the parties in the labor process, etc. It is true, however, that recent changes introduced in the civil process (monitoring action, early protection, etc.), making it more dynamic, not only could but should be wrapped up by the law labor procedural. The fourth trend is selfish. It is revealed by the behavior of part of the judiciary, more concerned with getting rid of the avalanche of lawsuits that cram the Judiciary than with the most just and often time-consuming solution of the conflicts that are submitted to them. An example of this are the famous judicial approvals of “agreements” that, strictly speaking, perpetuate authentic renunciations of workers. Other manifestation of this tendency is identified in the proposal to extend competence Labor Justice for other causes of a foreign nature to the employment relationship, as, for example, the collection of social security contributions, disputes inter-union etc. The argument is that the more competence, the more powers they will have labor judges to show their importance to public opinion, which could influence parliamentary discussions regarding the reform or extinction of Labor Justice itself. Finally, the fifth trend is the standardization. Results from the transformations technologies, especially information technology, which lead to the multiplication of conflicts of mass, which requires a new attitude of the judges, different from that adopted in