Supreme Court Justice Flávio Dino says he will decide by the end of the week on preliminary requests over the transition away from the 6x1 schedule, before sending the broader dispute to the court’s full bench. The constitutional amendment itself, including the eventual reduction in the weekly limit, is not under review; the immediate question is how its implementation rules should operate.¹

From the worker-focused account, Dino’s role is narrowly framed: he does not intend to alter Congress’s amendment, but to clarify provisions on collective agreements — including whether they can extend the period for compensating days off. That distinction matters because the case arose during a conciliation hearing involving business and worker representatives, while the National Confederation of Commerce sought to delay the transition.¹

The business case centres on operational pressure. The Confederation of Commerce argues that the proposed two-month period is too short to reorganise shifts, hire and train staff, and renegotiate contracts, particularly during a busy period for retail and tourism.¹ The Confederation of Commerce and the National Confederation of Industry have separately challenged the timetable, arguing that employers need longer to adjust staffing arrangements.²

Dino has indicated that collective bargaining may permit flexibility in the monthly or weekly limits for compensating rest days. “The monthly or weekly limit may be made flexible through collective bargaining,” he said, while warning that the amendment otherwise points toward rigidity.²

Under the timetable described in the court challenge, the maximum week would fall from 44 to 42 hours on December 16, 2026, then to 40 hours a year later without a pay cut. The government’s implementing decree remains pending, but Labour Minister Luiz Marinho has said it would set bargaining guidelines rather than exempt particular categories from the new rules.²