{"id":5030,"date":"2026-09-09T14:14:19","date_gmt":"2026-09-09T17:14:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cpdma.com.br\/2026-elections-companies-must-not-only-refrain-from-campaigning-they-must-also-prevent-electoral-harassment\/"},"modified":"2026-09-24T10:31:29","modified_gmt":"2026-09-24T13:31:29","slug":"2026-elections-companies-must-not-only-refrain-from-campaigning-they-must-also-prevent-electoral-harassment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cpdma.com.br\/en\/2026-elections-companies-must-not-only-refrain-from-campaigning-they-must-also-prevent-electoral-harassment\/","title":{"rendered":"2026 Elections: Companies Must Not Only Refrain from Campaigning\u2014they Must Also Prevent Electoral Harassment"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n

What Changes for Companies Under the New TSE Rules, Where Individual Political Expression Ends, and What Measures to Take Before the First Round of Voting<\/em><\/p>\n\n

Until the most recent elections, corporate neutrality was understood primarily as a duty to refrain: not to use company resources for campaigning, not to coerce employees, and not to interfere with their political choices. In 2026, that premise is no longer sufficient. <\/h5>\n\n

A resolution issued in March added a single paragraph to the regulations governing electoral advertising and, in doing so, expressly established a corporate duty that changes the logic of prevention: it is not enough for employers to refrain from interfering with their employees\u2019 political choices. They must take action to prevent the workplace from being used for electoral campaigning or harassment. <\/p>\n\n

The Provision That Changed the Framework<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

The amendment is set forth in Resolu\u00e7\u00e3o TSE n\u00ba 23.755\/2026,<\/a> dated March 2, which added \u00a7 2\u00ba-A to art. 19 da Resolu\u00e7\u00e3o TSE n\u00ba 23.610\/2019:<\/p>\n\n

Electoral campaigning or electoral harassment is prohibited in public- or private-sector workplaces<\/strong>, and any person who causes or permits<\/strong> it to occur shall be held liable in accordance with applicable law.<\/em><\/p>\n\n

Three elements warrant attention.<\/p>\n\n

The conjunction \u201cor<\/strong>\u201d separates two distinct forms of conduct. The rule prohibits not only electoral harassment but also electoral campaigning in the workplace. This means that not every violation requires proof that an employee was threatened or coerced. <\/p>\n\n

The term \u201cprivate<\/strong>\u201d definitively dispels the notion that the private nature of the workplace places it beyond the reach of electoral law.<\/p>\n\n

And \u201cpermits<\/strong>\u201d may be the most significant term for companies. The rule applies not only to those who engage in the conduct, but also to those who allow it to occur. An omission may therefore give rise to liability. If a company becomes aware of political pressure in the workplace and takes no action, its legal exposure increases significantly. Refraining from such conduct is not enough. Companies must prevent it, respond to it, and, above all, be able to demonstrate that they have done so. <\/p>\n\n

The Protection Already Existed. What Changed in 2026? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n

The new rule did not establish workplace protections against electoral harassment for the first time.<\/p>\n\n

The Brazilian Federal Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and prohibits the deprivation of rights on the grounds of philosophical or political convictions (art. 5\u00ba, VI e VIII).<\/p>\n\n

The CLT, in turn, grants employers managerial authority over the performance of work, not over workers\u2019 political beliefs. Abuse of that authority may have employment-related consequences, including constructive dismissal and compensation for moral damages. Lei n\u00ba 9.029\/1995 also provides a legal basis for prohibiting discriminatory practices in employment relationships, given the non-exhaustive nature of the practices it enumerates. Resolu\u00e7\u00e3o CSJT n\u00ba 355\/2023, for its part, had already defined electoral harassment as any distinction, exclusion, or preference based on political opinion, including with respect to access to employment. <\/p>\n\n

In 2026, however, it was not only the rule that changed. The manner in which electoral harassment cases reach the authorities responsible for investigating them also changed. <\/p>\n\n

On July 28, Resolu\u00e7\u00e3o CSJT n\u00ba 452\/2026 introduced a requirement that the Labor Public Prosecutor\u2019s Office and the Electoral Public Prosecutor\u2019s Office be notified of proceedings alleging facts that may constitute electoral harassment.<\/p>\n\n

On August 6, the TSE, TST, CSJT, and the various branches of the Public Prosecutor\u2019s Office entered into a cooperation agreement and launched the \u201cMy Vote, My Choice<\/strong>\u201d campaign, whose materials companies may use in awareness initiatives.<\/p>\n\n

Between 2023 and August 2026, Brazil\u2019s Labor Courts recorded 738 cases related to the issue, while the MPT had already received 135 complaints concerning the 2026 elections even before the official campaign period began.<\/p>\n\n

An Overview of the Cases<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

A survey released by the TST in August, covering 662 cases filed between May 2023 and December 2025, helps identify where companies should focus their preventive efforts.<\/p>\n\n

Psychological harassment is present in 81.9% of the cases<\/strong>. Its typical form is particularly significant because it does not always take the form of a direct order or threat. It often arises as predictions about the consequences that a particular election outcome could have for the company and for job security. <\/p>\n\n

The risk lies precisely in the conduct\u2019s appearance of normalcy: framed as an analysis of the economic outlook or the company\u2019s prospects, it may amount to electoral pressure when linked to employees\u2019 political choices.<\/p>\n\n

Another data point of particular relevance to companies is the medium used: 67.4% of the cases involve digital channels, including messaging groups, the distribution of political content, requirements that employees post such content on their personal accounts, and the monitoring of employees\u2019 social media activity.<\/p>\n\n

Guidelines for Employer Action<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

The application of the new rule raises a particularly sensitive question: how far may an employee\u2019s individual political expression extend in the workplace? May an employee wear a campaign button, lapel pin, or candidate T-shirt? May an employee park a personal vehicle bearing a campaign sticker on company premises? <\/p>\n\n

The answer is not entirely clear-cut.<\/p>\n\n

There are legal grounds for distinguishing an employee\u2019s individual, passive political expression from electoral campaigning as such. However, \u00a7 2\u00ba-A is recent, and this boundary will still need to be defined by the courts. This caution is important. Corporate neutrality does not mean the political neutralization of employees. <\/p>\n\n

Vestu\u00e1rio<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Art. 39-A da Lei n\u00ba 9.504\/1997 permits voters, on Election Day, to express their preferences individually and silently through flags, pins, and stickers. The provision specifically addresses the day on which electoral restrictions are most stringent and provides a relevant basis for distinguishing personal expression from organized campaign activity. <\/p>\n\n

However, that distinction depends on the circumstances.<\/p>\n\n

An individual, spontaneous, and passive expression of political preference is not necessarily equivalent to distributing T-shirts, coordinating group attire, approaching coworkers, soliciting votes, or using company resources to promote a particular candidate. The distinction lies less in the existence of a political preference than in the source, scope, and purpose of the expression<\/strong>. <\/p>\n\n

Employers may establish dress-code rules consistent with the nature of the work, particularly where uniforms, safety requirements, institutional representation, or interaction with the public are involved. To enhance legal certainty, any restriction on the display of political or partisan symbols should be set forth in a general, viewpoint-neutral rule and applied uniformly, regardless of the political preference expressed. <\/p>\n\n

The policy may be implemented even while the campaign is underway. The central issue is not when it is adopted, but whether its criteria and enforcement are neutral: the rule cannot be used to restrict a particular political preference while expressions of opposing views are tolerated. <\/p>\n\n

Vehicles and Parking Lots<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Electoral law permits the display of campaign stickers on privately owned vehicles. In a private parking lot designated for employees, it would not appear reasonable to restrict a vehicle\u2019s access solely because it bears a lawfully displayed campaign sticker. Such a measure could also raise questions regarding potential discrimination based on political beliefs. <\/p>\n\n

The situation is different when company-owned vehicles are involved or when a privately owned vehicle is used as part of an organized campaign effort in the workplace.<\/p>\n\n

The central distinction lies between an employee\u2019s individual political expression and the use of the workplace to influence other employees\u2019 political choices. The former should be addressed with caution; the latter must be prevented by the company. <\/p>\n\n

When Private Premises Are Deemed Open to the Public<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Restrictions on electoral campaigning also vary according to the location and the type of activity conducted there.<\/p>\n\n

For electoral purposes, the law classifies certain spaces accessible to the general public as public-use property, even when privately owned. These include, among others, movie theaters, clubs, stores, shopping malls, houses of worship, gymnasiums, and stadiums. <\/p>\n\n

In practice, this means that a store open to the public, although privately owned and a workplace, is also classified as public-use property for electoral purposes. Displaying a candidate\u2019s poster on the counter or in the storefront window, for example, is independently prohibited under electoral law, regardless of whether employees are subjected to harassment or coercion. <\/p>\n\n

This distinction is particularly relevant to retailers, shopping malls, fitness centers, food-service chains, and other establishments open to the public, where electoral campaigning is already subject to the specific restrictions applicable to public-use property.<\/p>\n\n

Accordingly, internal policies should take into account the specific characteristics of the business activity, the workplace, and the roles performed.<\/p>\n\n

Twelve Measures to Take Before the First Round of Voting<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Preventing electoral harassment requires concrete measures. Twelve steps can guide companies\u2019 conduct during the election period, organized into three areas: prevention, restrictions, and risk management. <\/p>\n\n

Prevention<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n

1. Formalize Institutional Guidelines<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

The company should clearly communicate its neutral position and the conduct expected during the election period. For preventive and evidentiary purposes, the guidelines should be in writing, and their distribution to employees should be documented. <\/p>\n\n

2. Train Managers and Supervisors<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Particular attention should be given to managers and supervisors, whose hierarchical position may lend greater weight to statements that would carry a different significance among peers. Training should use concrete examples to clarify the distinction between individual expression, electoral campaigning, and electoral pressure. <\/p>\n\n

3. Include Electoral Harassment in Reporting Channels<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

If the company already has an appropriate reporting channel, there is no need to create a separate mechanism. Employees should be expressly informed that incidents of electoral harassment or pressure may be reported, with confidentiality guaranteed and protection against retaliation. <\/p>\n\n

4. Establish an Investigation Procedure<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

The potential liability of those who allow such conduct to occur makes the company\u2019s response particularly important. Upon receiving a report, the company should promptly investigate the facts, document the steps taken, and, where appropriate, impose measures proportionate to the conduct identified. <\/p>\n\n

Restrictions<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

5. Do Not Survey Employees\u2019 Electoral Preferences<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Internal voting-intention surveys, polls, or records of employees\u2019 political views should be avoided. In addition to employment and electoral law risks, political opinions are classified as sensitive personal data under the LGPD. <\/p>\n\n

6. Prevent the Use of Company Resources for Campaigning<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Company facilities, vehicles, brand, equipment, materials, and corporate communication channels should not be placed at the service of candidates or political parties. Political expression by an owner or executive in an individual capacity must not be conflated with the use of the corporate entity for electoral purposes. <\/p>\n\n

7. Do Not Permit Campaign Activities in the Workplace<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Campaign rallies, leafleting, the organized distribution of campaign materials, solicitation of votes, and other campaign activities should not use the workplace as a venue for electoral mobilization. The same guidance applies to initiatives conducted by third parties on company premises. <\/p>\n\n

8. Safeguard Corporate Communication Channels<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Email, intranet systems, bulletin boards, internal television displays, and corporate messaging groups should not be used for electoral campaigning. This guidance should apply to all employees and, in particular, to those who administer or moderate these channels. <\/p>\n\n

Risk Management<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

9. Establish Standards for Attire and Individual Expression<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Any restrictions should take into account the nature of the work, the use of uniforms, interaction with the public, safety requirements, and the environment in which the work is performed. To enhance legal certainty, the criteria should be general, objective, and applied uniformly, without distinction based on political preference. <\/p>\n\n

10. Strengthen Documentation of Disciplinary Actions and Terminations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

There is no general prohibition on terminating employment during the election period. However, when disciplinary action or termination occurs in close temporal proximity to an employee\u2019s known political expression, the existence of objective, previously documented grounds becomes particularly important. <\/p>\n\n

11. Extend the Guidelines to Third-Party Contractors<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Service providers operating on company premises should also be made aware of the rules applicable to the workplace. Contracts, codes of conduct, or specific guidelines may incorporate measures designed to prevent electoral harassment and campaigning. <\/p>\n\n

12. Comply with Obligations Related to the Electoral Process<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

The company must ensure that employees can exercise their right to vote and must respect the rights of those called to serve by the Electoral Court, including any statutory leave entitlements. Initiatives involving the transportation of voters also require caution in light of the specific restrictions imposed by electoral law. <\/p>\n\n

Neutrality Is Not Censorship<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Preventing electoral harassment also requires care to ensure that the company does not exceed the proper bounds of its own authority.<\/p>\n\n

Institutional neutrality does not mean controlling political beliefs, investigating private political preferences, or restricting forms of expression that belong to an employee\u2019s individual sphere. The duty to prevent harassment does not authorize ideological surveillance. <\/p>\n\n

What the new rule requires is different: preventing the authority inherent in the employment relationship or the company\u2019s resources from being used to influence voters\u2019 freedom of choice.<\/p>\n\n

This distinction is fundamental. On one side lies each person\u2019s political freedom. On the other lies the company\u2019s duty to maintain a workplace in which that freedom can be exercised without pressure, coercion, or misuse of the employment relationship. <\/p>\n\n

Accordingly, the appropriate corporate response does not lie in an indiscriminate ban on political expression, but in clearly defined boundaries, properly trained managers and supervisors, secure reporting channels, and the ability to respond appropriately when those boundaries are crossed.<\/p>\n\n

In the 2026 elections, corporate neutrality does not mean inaction. It means ensuring that no one within the company uses a position of authority to interfere with a choice that belongs exclusively to the voter. <\/p>\n\n

There is still time before the first round of voting to review policies, guide managers and supervisors, and establish preventive mechanisms. Once a complaint is filed, the issue will not be merely what the company intended to do, but what it actually did to safeguard its employees\u2019 freedom of choice. <\/p>\n\n

By: Luciana KlugLabor Law | CPDMA Team<\/a><\/p>\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

What Changes for Companies Under the New TSE Rules, Where Individual Political Expression Ends, and What Measures to Take Before the First Round of Voting Until the most recent elections, corporate neutrality was understood primarily as a duty to refrain: not to use company resources for campaigning, not to coerce employees, and not to interfere […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":5029,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[35],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5030","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cpdma.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5030","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cpdma.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cpdma.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cpdma.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cpdma.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5030"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cpdma.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5030\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5031,"href":"https:\/\/www.cpdma.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5030\/revisions\/5031"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cpdma.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5029"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cpdma.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5030"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cpdma.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5030"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cpdma.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5030"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}