Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Employment Promotion and Protection against Unemployment Convention, 1988 (No. 168) - Brazil (Ratification: 1993)

Referring to its previous comments, the Committee takes due note of the information provided by the Government with respect to Articles 2 (coordination of policies); 8(3) (Promotion of employment of selected categories of unemployed persons); 10(2) (suspension of earnings due to a temporary suspension of work); 12 (level of unemployment benefit); 19(2)(b) (benefit paid following exhaustion of initial entitlement); and 23(1) (provision of free of charge medical care) of the Convention.

Article 10(1), in conjunction with Article 20(b) and (c). Covered contingencies. The Government confirms that, according to section 3 of Act No. 7.998 of 1990, the right to unemployment benefit is ensured only to “workers dismissed without just cause, including an indirect one”. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether it envisages introducing legislative provisions also guaranteeing that a person involuntarily unemployed due, for example, to the expiry of his or her fixed-term contract or dismissed for economic reasons would, after completing the six months qualifying period required by the national legislation, be entitled to receive unemployment benefit.

Article 11(1). Personal scope. The Government indicates that, according to a 2010 census, Brazil has approximately 86 million persons in work, of which about 37 million are formal workers possessing a work card and covered by the general unemployment insurance scheme, of which 7.7 million were granted unemployment benefit in 2011. With a view to being able to assess whether 85 per cent of all employees are effectively covered by unemployment insurance as required by the Convention, the Committee asks the Government to supply in its next report information on the total number of persons employed in the country compared to the number of those covered by all five unemployment protection schemes.

Article 19(2)(a) and (3). Minimum duration of unemployment benefit. The Committee recalls that unemployment benefit is paid for only three to five months, depending on the period of time for which the insured person was previously employed and thus does not attain the average duration of six months required by the Convention. The Committee would like the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated to bring the national legislation into line with this provision of the Convention.

Article 20(f). Suspension of benefits. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that, following the amendment of Act No. 7.998 in 2011, entitlement to unemployment benefit can be made conditional on enrolment in and attendance to a vocational training course provided free of charge. Recalling that paragraph (f) of this Article authorizes unemployment benefit to be refused, withdrawn or suspended whenever the person concerned has failed without just cause to use the facilities available for placement, vocational guidance, training, retraining or redeployment in suitable work, the Committee asks the Government to indicate whether the worker concerned can refuse an offer of vocational training, on the grounds that it is unsuitable for his or her professional or social status or for another just cause (for example family responsibilities, health, etc.) without losing the benefit.

Article 27(1). Right of appeal. The report indicates that, in accordance with section 4 of Resolution No 467 of 21 December 2005, the worker may lodge a complaint to the Ministry of Labour and Employment against the decision refusing the claim for unemployment benefit. The Committee again asks the Government to specify: (i) what legislative provisions ensure the right of appeal against the decision of the Ministry to an independent body; (ii) whether, in communicating its decision refusing the benefit, the Ministry of Labour also informs in writing the person concerned of the reasons for the refusal and the procedures available for appeal of its decision; and (iii) how these procedures operate in practice, taking into account the requirement of the Convention that they should be “simple and rapid”.