NEGOTIATED OR PROTECTED JUSTICE? LIMITS OF SELF-COMPOSITION IN THE LABOR COURT OF COLATINA (ES)

Abstract

The study examines self-composition, particularly conciliation, within the Labor Justice system as a tool for achieving social justice. It addresses the tension between those who advocate for expanding the parties’ autonomy in conflict resolution and those who reject such expansion under the strict lens of protection, grounded in the principled foundations of Labor Justice. The historical-normative approach outlines the origin of conciliation as an instrument aimed at social pacification, passing through the Consolidation of Labor Laws (CLT) and the Federal Constitution of 1988, emphasizing the importance of the former Labor Conciliation and Judgment Boards. In the second approach, the role of the labor judge is problematized in light of the imbalance between the parties, highlighting the importance of a proactive and critical posture during labor hearings. The study delves into an empirical analysis of the Labor Court of Colatina-ES, from 2020 to 2024, observing discrepancies between the increase in lawsuits and fluctuations in approved conciliatory practices, revealing structural and cultural limitations of self-composition. The third axis explores debates between the alternative justice model and labor law principles. Based on the public hearing held by the National Council of Justice (CNJ), it discusses pre-procedural mediation, the role of Judicial Centers for Conflict Resolution and Citizenship (CEJUSCS), and the potential risks of reducing worker protection. It concludes that a fair conciliatory policy requires a balance between autonomy and state protection, and that conciliation is only legitimate when aligned with fundamental rights and the social function of Labor Justice.

Keywords: Self-composition. Labor Justice. Social protection. Autonomy of will.