"Advisory, conciliation and arbitratrion service": uma análise a partir do direito inglês e da utilidade à justiça do trabalho no Brasil

Abstract

The purpose of this work is to analyze and criticize the "Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service" (in England and Wales) and its evolution in the English context, through the new methods that permeate Comparative Law and the Resolution No. 174 of 2016, made by the Superior Council of Labor Justice of Brazil, seeking as influences the "translation" of the first on the second. The methodology consisted of the bibliographic and legislative analysis of both countries. The results, however, focused on more incisive criticisms of the position of the Brazilian Labor Judiciary, due to the fact that its "translation" process does not appear to take into account the objective data provided annually by the National Council of Justice (of Brazil) in decision-making, as opposed to adoption of the Woolf Reports by the English courts to optimize the use of equivalent means of dispute resolution. After pointing out the inefficiency of the "way of meaning" chosen by the Brazilian protagonists and the presentation of "insights" that was obtained with the translation process of this author of the alien institution and law coming from England, the position adopted by the Labor Court of Brazil in its Resolution No. 174/2016 (elaborated by the Superior Council of Labor Justice) is being detrimental to achieving what the practice of fair means of conflict resolution could provide to the population and the treasury, positioning itself against the current conduct of the Superior Council of Labor Justice in relation to the aforementioned methods, since it was not perceived - in the Brazilian norms that were studied - a future similar to what the "Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service" reached in the England, here adopted as a viable and desirable empirical objective in the context of any country.