Since 2023, in its ruling on Topic 935, the STF has recognized the constitutionality of collecting the assistance contribution, including from non-union members, provided that the employee’s right to object is ensured.

However, in the virtual judgment of new motions for clarification, concluded on November 25, 2025, the Court, by majority, adjusted its thesis, establishing important limits that directly affect collective labor relations.

The decision clarifies and consolidates three central points: the prohibition of retroactive collection, a real and unbureaucratic right to object, and reasonableness and transparency in the amount.

This settles the previously existing controversies regarding the limits of the collection, the modulation of the decision’s effects and the form of objection.

The prohibition of retroactive collection means that the assistance contribution cannot be charged for the period between 2017 and 2023, when the STF still considered the charge unconstitutional for non-members.

Regarding the employee’s right to object, the Court established that it must be exercised through simple, accessible and effective means, without interference from third parties (whether the union or the company) and with clear communication.

However, the STF did not define the proper manner, time and place for non-union employees to exercise their right to object to paying the assistance contribution. This issue will be decided by the Superior Labor Court (TST) in the judgment of Topic No. 2 of the Incident for the Resolution of Repetitive Claims (IRDR), and all cases involving this discussion have been stayed pending the TST’s decision.

As for the amount, the Court ruled that it must be proportionate (taking into account the economic capacity of the category), justified and democratically approved at a general meeting, so that abusive or non-transparent charges are likely to be invalidated.

For unions, the STF’s understanding definitively rules out any attempt at retroactive collection prior to 2023, while the understanding that the charge was unconstitutional was still in force.

The STF’s aim is to balance the worker’s individual autonomy with the funding of union entities, ensuring transparency in the relationship. The decision therefore tends to balance the preservation of collective bargaining with the protection of individual guarantees.

In practice, employers need to review their payroll deduction routines and ensure that individual objections are respected within the established limits, that is, through simple, accessible and effective means. Employees must be informed of this possibility and, above all, the exercise of this right to object must be enabled and facilitated.