Crítica ao tratamento jurisprudencial da greve política no Brasil: uma análise da greve dos portuários de 2013

Abstract

Every strike is political. The present study aims to make a critical analysis of the majority jurisprudential position regarding the political strike. The strike is a very important instrument at the disposal of workers to speak out against injustice. Historically, through this institute, the proletariat of the world has fought and won better working conditions, higher wages and even political rights, and has even been an important means of struggle against undemocratic regimes. However, in Brazil, the strike has always been resisted, sometimes being a criminal offense and others being accepted, but with severe restrictions. Today, with the re-democratization of the country and the promulgation of the Federal Constitution, the strike became a right, but a right still resisted. Resisted not only by law, but mainly by judicial decisions that interpret this right in the narrowest possible way. Although everyone recognizes the historical importance of the strike in winning new rights to the people, the dominant jurisprudence considers the strike with political purpose as abusive. However, are these restrictions consistent? Based on this central question, a research was carried out based on a bibliographical methodology, through books, articles published in periodicals, data published on the Internet and official documents on the subject in order to find elements that could answer it. For this purpose, the port workers strike of 2013 was used as a reference point against MP 595, as this strike was declared abusive by the Tribunal Superior do Trabalho (TST) under the main argument that the employer, although directly affected, did not has the power to negotiate and pacify the conflict that is not directly related to the employment contract. Thus, after a comparative critical analysis of jurisprudence in the case of the port workers stike and of the doctrine, it was concluded that the treatment given by the TST to the political strike is flawed and that this separation constituted by the jurisprudence dividing the public from the private is fallacious.