Debate over PEC 6×1 has centered on cutting the workweek from 44 to 40 hours and adding a second day of rest, yet the draft also triggers two financial consequences that could raise payroll costs beyond the loss of work hours.
Higher weekly rest pay for hourly workers
The amendment revises the paid weekly rest (DSR) from one‑sixth of weekly earnings to two‑fifths, moving the base from six to five workdays. This shift means the rest premium jumps from 16.67 % to 40 % of the week’s pay.
Consider a teacher who currently earns R$ 1 000 for classes and receives R$ 166.67 as DSR. Under the new rule the same teaching load would generate R$ 400 in rest pay, a rise of roughly 20 % without any change to the hourly rate.
Schools, colleges, retail chains and other businesses that rely on hourly labor would therefore see total compensation rise by about one‑fifth, according to the calculations presented in the amendment’s text.
Impact on fixed‑salary employees
For workers on a monthly salary, the amendment alters the divisor used to convert monthly pay into an hourly rate. The current divisor for a 44‑hour week is 220, derived from the formula in article 64 of the CLT.
Read Also: Bolsonaro associates Moraes with Lula, promises 5 minister nominations
The TST already applies a divisor of 200 for a 40‑hour week, as established in Súmula 431 and Tema Repetitivo 260. The new provision, however, adds a second paid rest, a factor not addressed by existing jurisprudence, opening the door to divergent interpretations.
If the divisor follows the five‑day workweek logic, a employee earning R$ 2 200 per month at 44 hours (hourly rate R$ 10) would see the hourly rate fall to R$ 9.17. Because the amendment bars any nominal salary reduction, a 9.1 % increase in the monthly salary would be required to preserve earnings.
Alternatively, applying the six‑day divisor of 200 would lift the hourly rate to R$ 11, leaving the monthly salary unchanged but increasing the cost of overtime, night‑shift premiums and other variable components.
On a payroll of R$ 100 000 per month, the first scenario adds roughly R$ 9 100 in extra wages, while the second scenario would push overtime expenses from R$ 10 000 to R$ 11 000.
Legal uncertainty and potential litigation
Neither the Supreme Labor Court nor prior rulings contemplated two paid weekly rests mandated by a constitutional amendment. This gap creates a risk of divergent judicial opinions and possible lawsuits as employers and unions seek clarification.
Read Also: State Could Boost Services Without Raising Taxes
One cautious observation: without a clear legislative definition, companies may face unexpected cost spikes, while workers could encounter disputes over the correct calculation method. A timely amendment could prevent a wave of labor‑court challenges.
Legislators could avoid the unintended financial burden by wording the amendment to guarantee two days of rest, but only one paid, leaving the treatment of the second day to ordinary law.
A suggested rewrite of article 7, clause XV would read: “two days of weekly rest, one of them obligatorily remunerated, in the manner established by law.” This would preserve the intended reduction in work hours while eliminating the automatic 40 % DSR increase.
Transition rules for the calculation factor
A transitional provision could keep the divisor at 220 for current employees, protecting their hourly rate and monthly pay, while applying a divisor of 200 to new hires. Such a split would prevent a uniform rise in payroll expenses.
Draft language might add a paragraph stating that the law may set criteria for any compensation related to the second rest day and for the method of computing the hourly rate, expressly forbidding any reduction in nominal monthly salary or an automatic change in the divisor upon the amendment’s enactment.
Read Also: São Paulo: A City Beyond Business
In practice, firms would retain the existing cost structure for their workforce, while new contracts would align with the 40‑hour framework, smoothing the transition.
Who ultimately bears the cost?
The added expense will fall on employers, who may pass it to workers through lower hiring or on consumers via higher prices. The amendment’s text does not allocate this burden, leaving it to market forces or future legislation.
Regardless of the chosen path, a conscious decision by the Congress is essential; leaving the issue to judicial interpretation could delay resolution for years and generate uncertainty for businesses.
Closing the textual gap now, either by adjusting the paid‑rest wording or by specifying the divisor rule, would be a more efficient solution than waiting for courts to fill the void.
