We are employees of the Brazilian Government, known as Locally Employed Staff (LES). For over six decades, we have endured a framework of legal ambiguity as our employment rights are not defined by clarity or equity, but by a fragmented patchwork of outdated laws, unfulfilled regulations and conflicting interpretations of international and constitutional norms.
This prolonged inconsistency does not reflect a just State, but rather a failure to recognize the humanity and contributions of those who serve the nation beyond its borders.
It is time to lay bare the unjust and unilateral legal impositions conveniently placed upon us, Brazil’s Locally Employed Staff (LES). It is a quiet, systemic injustice that has affected thousands of dedicated professionals and their families across the globe. Such practices defy the principles of fairness, dignity and equality that every nation committed to justice must uphold.
Timeline
This timeline overview of employment legislation relating to Locally Employed Staff (LES) has been prepared by LES colleagues who are professionally qualified in law, bringing both academic expertise and lived experience to this analysis.
Early Employment: Precarious and Unprotected (1961 – 1986)
The story begins with Law 3,917 (1961) which allowed Brazilian embassies and consulates to hire local assistants abroad on a precarious basis, meaning they could be fired at any time without reason. There were no official pension rights or social security benefits, only contributions to a basic fund (Fundo de Assistência Social – FAS) meant to support eventual severance or reimbursement. There was no clear rule about whether these workers had any labour or pension rights under Brazilian or local law.
Legal Shifts: From Brazilian to Local Law (1986 – 1993)
In 1986, Law 7,501 introduced the concept of the Local Employed Staff – (LES) and said they would be governed by Brazilian law, but only “as applicable” and with flexibility based on local conditions. Then, in 1990, Law 8,028 removed the word “Brazilian”, making the legal basis even more ambiguous.
Local Laws Take Precedence (After 1993)
A major change came with Law 8,745 (1993). It stated that LES would follow the labour and social security laws of the host country, unless those laws prevented Brazilian workers from joining the local system. In such cases, they would be enrolled by the employer in Brazil’s INSS (the national social security system).
Workers already employed at the time were given a 90-day window to opt to remain under their existing (vague) arrangements or not.
Regulation and Some Clarification (1995 – 2003)
Decree 1,570 (1995) formally required LES to follow local laws and social security rules. It said only those legally barred from joining the host country’s system should be enrolled in INSS. It also stated that LES hired after 1995 would only benefit from rights offered under local law.
Later, INSS rules (published in 2002 and updated in 2003) clarified that Brazilian LES must be insured in Brazil if they cannot legally join the host country’s system. This appeared to settle the matter: Brazilian staff must be covered, either locally or by Brazil’s system.
Unresolved Problems and Legal Inconsistencies (2006)
In 2006, Law 11,440 established new rules for Locally Employed Staff (CLs), but it was never regulated. As a result, these new rules were never actually implemented.
Instead, Brazil continued to apply the old Decree No. 1,570 of 1995 (“i.e”: which stated that Locally Employed Staff (LES) should follow the labour and social security laws of the country where they are hired), even after the repeal of the law that had originally supported it in the first place (Law No. 7,501 of 1986).
As a result, some Brazilian workers registered with the INSS do not receive the labour and social security benefits to which they would be entitled, such as: retirement, sick leave, maternity pay, death pension, disability allowance, and unemployment insurance.
International Practices vs. Brazilian Reality
In most democratic countries, governments protect their nationals abroad by ensuring at least basic rights, even under foreign jurisdictions.
The Brazilian State, however, has failed to provide adequate legal protection to its own Locally Employed Staff (LES) posted overseas, by not guaranteeing, at a minimum, the application of the Consolidation of Labour Laws (CLT), the main legal framework governing labour relations in Brazil, which ensures fundamental rights for workers.
Instead, it chooses to automatically and indiscriminately impose the exclusive application of local labour laws in host countries, even in cases where such laws offer significantly fewer protections than those provided by Brazilian legislation. This choice represents a renunciation of proper protection for its employees and goes against the constitutional principles of dignity, equality and the valorization of labour.
The Brazilian government conveniently argues it is “respecting the sovereignty of the host country”, but in doing so, it undermines its own Constitution and labour laws, harming both Brazilian citizen’s rights and its own international diplomatic credibility.
Territoriality and Conflict of Laws
International law generally follows the principle of territoriality, that labour laws should follow the country where work is done. Brazil supports this in both its jurisprudence – published by Brazil’s Superior Court of Labour – (TST, Precedent 207) and international treaties (like the Bustamante Code).
While embassies and consulates are frequently treated as extensions of Brazilian territory for matters of state interest, this principle is inconsistently applied when it comes to employment rights. In practice, such recognition is invoked selectively, often to the detriment of Locally Employed Staff (LES). This inconsistency undermines legal coherence and fairness.
A growing body of legal opinion maintains that, particularly where LES are Brazilian nationals, the labour protections enshrined in Brazilian law should extend to diplomatic representations abroad. These individuals, serving the Brazilian State outside its borders, must not be left in a legal vacuum where their rights are neither acknowledged under local legislation nor fully upheld by the laws of their home country.
Brazilian Constitutional Protections
The 1988 Constitution guarantees basic rights for all workers, including:
- Protection from unfair dismissal.
- Social security.
- Fair pay, 13th salary and paid leave.
- Maternity and paternity rights.
- The right to strike and unionise.
These rights cannot be denied, even to Brazilians working abroad, especially those working at Brazilian diplomatic representations.
It is important to recognise that while the 1988 Federal Constitution stands as one of the most significant expressions of Brazil’s democratic commitment, enshrining values such as legal certainty, equality and the dignity of public service, it also carries direct and enduring implications for individuals who have been in service to the State.
Among its provisions is the right of any person who had served the Brazilian State at the municipal, state or federal level uninterruptedly for five years or more at the time of its promulgation/publication, to be formally recognised as a civil servant. This clear and self-executing guarantee was intended to honour long-standing service. Yet, nearly four decades later, many who fulfilled these conditions remain unrecognised under the law.
This is still the reality for some of us, Locally Employed Staff (LES) who were serving at Brazil’s diplomatic missions abroad. Whether we began our service before or after the promulgation/publication of the Brazilian Constitution, we have dedicated years, often entire lifetimes, to loyal and uninterrupted work on behalf of the Brazilian State. Yet despite our continued contributions, many of us still face legal and administrative uncertainty regarding the recognition of our constitutional rights. Some of our colleagues, sadly, passed away before their claims were ever resolved in its totality.
This situation calls for renewed institutional attention and moral clarity. Upholding the Constitution is not merely a legal duty, it is a gesture of justice and gratitude toward those who have long served Brazil with dedication and integrity.
Legal Interpretation and Best Practices
Legal experts agree:
- If no law clearly establishes a different regime, the default must be Brazil’s national labour legislation, that is, regulation through the Consolidation of Labour Laws (CLT).
- Even temporary workers must receive constitutional protections.
- Any regime, or convenient choice that gives fewer rights than the Brazilian Constitution should be invalid.
Conclusion:
Brazil’s legal treatment of us, its own Locally Employed Staff – (LES) abroad has been systematically inconsistent, outdated and constitutionally flawed. Despite “reforms”, many of us remain without full protection, caught between local laws and Brazilian obligations.
The path forward is both evident and imperative: the Federative Republic of Brazil must modernise the regulatory framework governing its Locally Employed Staff (LES), ideally through the issuance of a Presidential Decree.
This process should be undertaken in close and structured consultation with LES representatives, whose extensive experience, accumulated over more than six decades of service in Brazilian diplomatic missions abroad, provides indispensable institutional knowledge and practical expertise. Our insight is not only relevant but essential to formulating a sustainable and just solution to a longstanding issue that directly impacts the efficiency, credibility, and fairness of Brazil’s global presence.
In doing so, Brazil will not only honour the fundamental principles enshrined in its own Constitution but also reaffirm its commitment to fair, transparent and protective labour practices for all professionals acting in service of the nation beyond its borders.
Why the legal limbo needs to end
The Brazilian Government often claims that applying local labour laws to the employment of Locally Employed Staff (LES) is both easier and more cost-effective. It further hides behind the widely questioned pretext of “respecting the sovereignty of the host country”, a justification that many see through, as it conveniently avoids the responsibility of providing clear, consistent protection.
In practice, this approach has led to serious and persistent problems, particularly in countries with common law systems, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada (except Quebec), Australia, New Zealand, and India (except Goa) where local frameworks are often inadequate for addressing the unique employment circumstances of diplomatic missions.
In countries where the legal system is based mainly on customary or common law, workers’ rights are not always clearly written in formal laws. Instead, these rights often come from past court decisions and how judges have interpreted similar cases over time. For us, Locally Employed Staff (LES) this can make it especially difficult to assert our rights. Defending our rights often means going to court, a process that can be complicated, slow and very expensive.
In such legal systems, it is not enough to point to a written law. Instead, some of us need to prove that a certain practice has been followed regularly over time and that it is generally accepted as fair and normal. This is known as “custom”. To succeed, you must explain this to a judge and provide evidence to support it. This process can be stressful and challenging, especially without legal assistance.
To make matters even worse for us, Brazilian embassies and consulates have often and conveniently refused to work with local trade unions that could support LES. They conveniently do not recognise these trade unions, so we cannot negotiate as a group or get help with workplace issues. We are left to deal with problems alone, without legal backing, trade union support or help from our own employer, the Brazilian government itself.
This situation creates a serious imbalance. On the one hand, Brazilian diplomats and officials (recognised as civil servants because they are employed in Brazil and posted to work abroad on a rotational cycle) are fully protected under Brazilian law and benefit from comprehensive government support. On the other hand, us, the Locally Employed Staff (LES), who work for the same government and sit side by side under the same roof with these officials, contributing to the same mission of representing Brazil abroad, are left to navigate challenges alone. Without a clearly defined legal status or collective protections, we are exposed to unequal treatment, job insecurity and unfair working conditions.
We remain in a state of legal limbo – a prolonged condition in which our employment rights are neither clearly defined nor uniformly enforced. This uncertainty, caused by the selective and inconsistent application of local labour laws in host countries, leaves us without the protection afforded to others serving the same national mission.
This double standard can no longer be “justified”: if we serve the same country, under the same flag, for the same mission, and are all paid with public funds, we deserve equal protection, dignity, and rights.
Hidden Cost to Brazilian Taxpayers
The absence of clear structures and effective oversight in the management of Locally Employed Staff (LES) across Brazilian diplomatic missions abroad is not only inequitable, but increasingly costly.
A growing number of legal actions have been brought against these missions, particularly in jurisdictions governed by common law systems, highlighting ongoing challenges in employment practices. These cases are frequently successful underscoring systemic shortcomings in the way we are treated under the responsibility of the Brazilian Government, through its Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
While it is standard procedure for diplomatic missions to engage legal advisors through public procurement processes, in practice, the same consultants or firms are often retained for extended periods of time.
This continuity is typically defended on the basis that “long-standing advisors possess valuable institutional memory and familiarity with the specific legal complexities of diplomatic operations”. However, such arrangements can, over time, foster a dynamic in which legal guidance becomes closely aligned with the internal preferences of the mission and its top representatives of the time, rather than offering independent and rigorous analysis. This approach risks diminishing the objectivity and effectiveness of legal advice, potentially reinforcing standards of administrative convenience at the expense of compliance and fairness.
The financial consequences of these practices are significant. Each successful legal claim typically results in substantial compensation, funded by the Brazilian public purse. In effect, taxpayer resources are being used to cover the costs of litigation that could have been avoided through more transparent, equitable and professionally governed employment policies. A shift toward consistent and accountable practices would not only reduce legal exposure but strengthen institutional integrity across Brazil’s diplomatic network.
Without urgent reform, Brazil will continue to pay a high price not just in courtrooms , but in lost integrity, public trust and global credibility.
Related Academic Research
Academic research in employment and labour law is crucial in defending rights in court. It offers the legal and ethical foundation needed to assess not just the legality but also the fairness of employment practices. Courts, especially human rights tribunals, rely on this research to understand systemic issues, interpret evolving standards and align decisions with international obligations.
In complex cases like the treatment of Locally Employed Staff (LES) abroad, scholarly work provides essential context. It exposes long-standing inequalities, clarifies legal gaps and supports arguments for fairer rights-based systems. For judges, such evidence strengthens legal reasoning and helps shape decisions that deliver justice and set meaningful precedent.
The research listed below offers deeper insights for readers seeking to expand their understanding of this growing and indisputable injustice. As public awareness increases day by day, informed knowledge becomes essential not only to grasp the scale of the problem but to recognise its urgent need for change.
In a world where justice depends not only on law but on understanding, academic research becomes the bridge between buried truths and rightful change.
- The hiring of personnel who provide services to the Brazilian state abroad: civil servants legally or de facto? |by Oliveira, Sueli Bisinoto de | June 2016 | in Portuguese
- The legal status of local auxiliaries of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs | by Martins, Veridiana Tavares | February 2015 | in Portuguese
- The precarious position of Embassy and Consular Employees in the United Kingdom |by Richard Garnett via Cambridge University Press | January 2008 | in English
- Employees hired locally by Embassies and Consulates abroad before the 1988 Brazilian are Civil Servants| by De Mattos, Mauro Roberto Gomes | in Portuguese