Brazil’s NR-1 after the Supreme Federal Court: sanctions paused, obligation in force

In short. Work-related psychosocial risks are conditions of work organisation, management and relationships (such as excessive workload, incompatible targets, low autonomy, harassment and violence) that can harm mental and physical health. Since 26 May 2026, Brazil’s Regulatory Standard No. 1 (Norma Regulamentadora 1, NR-1) has required these factors to be considered when identifying, assessing and managing occupational risks. The Supreme Federal Court (STF) has suspended fines and other sanctions based on these provisions, but has not removed the standard from force.

Headquarters and European buyers may read headlines such as “Brazil suspends NR-1”. The accurate picture is narrower. What is suspended is the use of the psychosocial risk provisions as grounds for infringement notices, fines, punitive notifications or other coercive measures. The duty to manage these risks remains. The ruling also does not set aside other applicable rules or the possible labour, operational and reputational impacts linked to working conditions.

In our view, the suspension period is a useful window to organise the process: sanctions based on the challenged items are suspended, but the standard is in force, inspections remain possible and the parameters are still under discussion.

What the Supreme Federal Court decided, and what it did not

• The case. ADPF 1316 (a claim of non-compliance with a fundamental precept, brought before the Supreme Federal Court), filed by the National Confederation of Educational Establishments (Confenen). The rapporteur is Justice André Mendonça.¹
• The injunction. On 25 June 2026, the rapporteur suspended items 1.5.3.1.4, 1.5.3.2.1, 1.5.4.4.2.1, 1.5.4.4.2.2 and 1.5.4.4.5.3 of NR-1 for 90 days, “solely insofar as they serve as grounds for infringement notices, fines, punitive notifications or other coercive measures” (our translation). The decision noted concern about the lack of sufficiently clear criteria for applying penalties. The ruling that upheld the injunction expressly preserves federal inspection activity, the issuing of recommendations and informative measures, and sanctions based on other occupational health and safety rules.² The case was referred to the STF’s conciliation centre (Nusol).¹
• Confirmation. The full Court unanimously upheld the injunction in a virtual session held from 7 to 18 August 2026.²
• Extension. After a first conciliation meeting at Nusol on 14 September, the rapporteur extended the suspension for a further 90 days, in a decision announced by the STF on 24 September 2026.³ Counting those 90 days, the suspension runs to the end of December 2026, unless an agreement, a judgment or a new decision comes first. The National Health Confederation (CNSaúde, ADPF 1333) and the National Confederation of Trade in Goods, Services and Tourism (CNC, ADPF 1340) also challenge the provisions and take part in the conciliation.³ The Office of the Attorney General of the Union (AGU) asked for the dispute to be taken to a federal body that promotes legal certainty in the business environment (Sejan), and the rapporteur asked the AGU for further information on that request.³

What remains in force. The standard itself; the duty to consider psychosocial risks in Occupational Risk Management (GRO); the labour inspectorate’s power to inspect, advise and issue recommendations and informative measures; and sanctions based on other rules.² The ruling deals with sanctions based on the five items listed and does not lay down a general rule on labour or civil claims. Customers, lenders and investors may continue to ask how the company manages these risks.

What changed in NR-1, and since when

Ministry of Labour and Employment (MTE) Ordinance No. 1,419 of 27 August 2024 rewrote chapter 1.5 of NR-1. Item 1.5.3.1.4 requires risk management to cover risks “related to ergonomic factors, including work-related psychosocial risk factors” (our translation).⁴ Ordinance No. 765 of 15 May 2025 extended to 25 May 2026 the period before the new chapter took effect, so it has applied since 26 May 2026.⁵

In March 2026, the MTE launched a manual on the interpretation and application of chapter 1.5 of NR-1. In May 2026, it published a questions-and-answers document.⁶ There, the MTE said that, for the new provisions, it would apply the “double visit” rule, “initially advisory in nature”, without prejudice to measures in the cases provided for, and that for 90 days after the start date the inspectorate would tend to prioritise guidance, instruction and notification.⁶ Counting 90 days from 26 May, that initial period ended on 24 August 2026, when the STF suspension was already in effect.

The MTE also said questionnaires are not mandatory and organisations may choose technically appropriate methods. Used in isolation, a questionnaire “is not sufficient” to characterise the management of psychosocial risks.⁶

Micro and small enterprises with risk grade 1 or 2 that identify no exposure to physical, chemical or biological agents and submit the digital information required under item 1.6.1 may be exempt from preparing a Risk Management Programme (PGR). According to the MTE, a Preliminary Ergonomic Assessment (AEP) is still mandatory in these cases.⁶

Five questions your process should answer, with or without fines

1. Identification. Does the process show, on technically sound grounds, how psychosocial factors were identified and assessed and, where characterised, included in the risk inventory? According to the MTE, their absence from the inventory is not irregular in itself if the process shows why they were not characterised.⁶
2. Assessment. Are the criteria explicit, and do they consider working conditions under NR-17 (ergonomics), including psychosocial risk factors?⁴
3. Action plan. Does the plan record prevention measures with a timetable, owners and follow-up? NR-1 gives priority to collective protection; where that is not feasible or sufficient, administrative or work-organisation measures follow, and then personal protective equipment.⁴
4. Participation. Are workers consulted on how they perceive the risks and informed of the risks and measures? The MTE expects “effective, continuous” participation consistent with the GRO process, which can be evidenced, for example, by records of consultations, minutes, communication and training.⁴⁶
5. Consistency. Does the paperwork match what workers actually experience?

At a minimum, the PGR must contain the risk inventory (including the psychosocial factors identified and their assessment) and the action plan. Worker participation must also be evidenced.⁴⁶

Harassment and ILO C190

The World Health Organization (WHO) lists violence, harassment and bullying among psychosocial risks at work.⁷ Brazil’s Law 14,457/2022 already requires companies with an Internal Commission for Accident and Harassment Prevention (Comissão Interna de Prevenção de Acidentes e de Assédio, CIPA) to adopt conduct rules on sexual harassment and other forms of violence; procedures to receive and follow up complaints, investigate the facts and, where appropriate, apply administrative sanctions; to include the topic in the CIPA’s activities; and to provide training, guidance and awareness actions for employees at all levels at least every 12 months.⁸ These obligations derive from a separate law, outside the scope of ADPF 1316.

Brazil has not yet ratified ILO Convention No. 190 on violence and harassment. The Chamber of Deputies approved it on 1 September 2026, and the text has been awaiting dispatch in the Senate since 2 September.⁹¹⁰ Even after approval by Congress, Brazil will still have to formally ratify the Convention and communicate the ratification to the ILO for registration; the Convention enters into force for a country 12 months after registration. In our view, adopting parameters compatible with C190 now may reduce future adjustments, should Brazil ratify it.

Why this is a human rights issue

Under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), companies should identify, prevent and mitigate the adverse impacts they cause, contribute to or are directly linked to, and account for how they address them. This process is known as human rights due diligence (HRDD).¹¹ Brazil’s Constitution guarantees the reduction of risks inherent to work (Art. 7, XXII), and in 2022 the ILO added a safe and healthy working environment to its fundamental principles and rights at work.¹²

An HRDD lens changes three things. Who is in scope: due diligence considers impacts on affected people and groups, with meaningful consultation; contractors, temporary and site workers may be among them. How to prioritise: where prioritisation is needed, start with the most severe impacts on people (scale, scope, irremediable character).¹¹ How to close the loop: monitor effectiveness, maintain or take part in grievance mechanisms and, where the company has caused or contributed to an impact, provide for or cooperate in remediation.¹¹ For groups with customers, lenders or shareholders abroad, documenting this process can also support answers to their due diligence questionnaires.

Common mistakes

Stopping work because “NR-1 was suspended” (only sanctions based on the challenged items were suspended, and for a limited period); treating it as a health-and-safety task only, when many psychosocial factors stem from targets, staffing, working hours and leadership; confusing a survey with risk management;⁶ offering only individual support instead of measures on work organisation; leaving contractors out (NR-1 item 1.5.8 provides that the client’s PGR either includes the prevention measures applicable to contractors or relies on the contractors’ programmes, in which case the contractor provides the risk inventory and action plan for the contracted activities);⁴ keeping complaint data separate from the risk inventory; and token consultation, which does not in itself show that workers were consulted.

FAQ

### Did the Supreme Federal Court suspend NR-1? No. For a limited period, it suspended the use of five NR-1 items on psychosocial risk factors as grounds for infringement notices, fines, punitive notifications or other coercive measures (ADPF 1316). The standard and the duty to manage the risks remain in force.²³

### Until when? The injunction of 25 June 2026 was upheld by the full Court (virtual session, 7 to 18 August 2026) and extended for a further 90 days in September. Counting that period, the suspension runs to the end of December 2026, unless there is a new decision or an agreement in the conciliation.²³

### Can inspectors still visit? Yes. The ruling preserves federal inspection activity, recommendations and informative measures, and sanctions based on other rules. What is suspended are infringement notices, fines, punitive notifications and other coercive measures based on the challenged items.²

### Is Law 14,457/2022 affected? ADPF 1316 concerns five NR-1 items. The harassment prevention duties of companies with a CIPA derive from Article 23 of Law 14,457/2022, which is not the subject of the case.⁸

How Jornadas can help

• On-Site Decent Work Monitoring: structured assessment of working conditions, working hours, harassment situations and listening and grievance mechanisms, including at contractors.
• Dialogue Circles in Operations: structured listening that can help document worker participation and feed into the GRO.
• Training and Capacity Building: for leaders, CIPA members and investigation teams.

This article is for information only and does not constitute legal advice.