L’unité économique et sociale, communément appelée « UES » est une pure création jurisprudentielle. Elle est apparue au début des années 1970 afin de mettre fin à la fraude de certains employeurs qui entendaient scinder leur société en de petites sociétés pour éviter la mise en place des institutions représentatives du personnel. Ces petites structures étaient alors considérées par le juge comme formant une seule et même entreprise pour la représentation du personnel puisque la même personne dirigeait une communauté de travail laquelle travaillait autour de la même activité. Utilisée rapidement en dehors des seules hypothèses de fraude, l’UES s’est également émancipée du droit de la représentation salariale. Ce travail d’émancipation est essentiellement le fruit de la jurisprudence, le législateur ayant très peu légiféré sur l’UES. Les relations collectives de travail essentiellement et les relations individuelles de travail dans une moindre mesure sont ainsi devenues accessibles à l’UES. Jusqu’au début des années 2000, la doctrine était très enthousiaste sur la notion d’UES et estimait même que l’UES devait être considérée comme l’entreprise en droit du travail. Aujourd’hui, cet élan est quelque peu retombé. L’UES est constituée de plusieurs personnes juridiques, lesquelles gardent leurs caractéristiques propres malgré la reconnaissance de l’UES. L’application de l’UES dans l’ensemble des domaines du droit du travail apparaît alors aujourd’hui inenvisageable. Mais, pour autant, l’UES constitue l’un des périmètres sociaux de l’entreprise en droit du travail. Il s’agira alors de savoir quelle place doit être conférée à l’UES en droit du travail. / The social and economic union commonly called ‘SEU’ is a case law creation. This union appeared at the beginning of the 1970s to end the tax evasion of some employers who wanted to divide their firms into smaller ones in order to avoid the creation of work force representative unions. These small firms were then considered as one and only firm for labour representation by the judge because the same person leads a work force which deals with the same business. Quickly used over tax evasion hypotheses, the ‘SEU’ also became liberated from wage policies. This liberation is mostly the work of the jurisprudence, the legislator having hardly legislated on the ‘SEU’. The individual work force relations, and the collective ones in a greater part, opened to the ‘SEU’ that way. Until the beginning of the years 2000, the doctrine was very enthusiastic about the ‘SEU’, and even thought that it should be considered as the Labour law representation. Today this momentum has fallen off. The ‘SEU’ is made of several judicial persons who keep their own characteristics despite the ‘SEU’ recognition. The launching of the ‘SEU’ in the whole labour field seems now unconceivable, even if the ‘SEU’ is one of the firm’s social representation in Labour laws. What we want to know is the importance that should be given to the ‘SEU’ in Labour laws.

Submitted by Marlene Aparecida de Souza Cardozo (mcardozo@pucsp.br) on 2016-11-22T15:02:19Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Elessandra dos Santos Marques Válio.pdf: 479553 bytes, checksum: 1ecbe88268f530c98911929a785b916b (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-11-22T15:02:19Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Elessandra dos Santos Marques Válio.pdf: 479553 bytes, checksum: 1ecbe88268f530c98911929a785b916b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-10-04 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / This thesis is committed to investigate the limits of the autonomy of collective will, which willbe based on the historicity and the main concepts of representative bodies of workers andcollective bargaining, focusing especially in Brazil. So, first will discuss the evolution of tradeunion rights in Brazil and internationally, to then enter the justification of autonomy of the will,with its historical evolution in our country, and then deal with social conflicts and developconcept and the principles to be observed relating to collective bargaining, also considering theintrinsic limits to the autonomy of the will. Finally, it is clear in supporting the mostcontemporary vision of the Supreme Court opening the flexibility of labor rights throughcollective bargaining, taking into account the development of freedom of choice and basicparameters of human dignity / A presente tese tem como compromisso investigar os limites impostos à autonomia da vontadecoletiva, o que será feito com base na historicidade e nos principais conceitos dos órgãosrepresentativos dos trabalhadores e da negociação coletiva, focando especialmente no Brasil.Assim, primeiramente se tratará de discorrer sobre a evolução do direito sindical no cenáriobrasileiro e internacional, para, posteriormente, adentrar na justificativa da autonomia da vontadedas partes, com sua evolução histórica em nosso país, e, depois, tratar dos conflitos sociais edesenvolver o conceito e os princípios a serem observados relativos à negociação coletiva,considerando os também intrínsecos limites à autonomia da vontade. Por fim, conclui-se noapoio à visão mais contemporânea do Supremo Tribunal Federal de abertura à flexibilização dosdireitos trabalhistas mediante a negociação coletiva, levando-se em conta o desenvolvimento daautonomia da vontade e parâmetros basilares de dignidade da pessoa humana