Carmo Sousa Machado and Gonçalo Delicado advocate stability and agreements between Trade Unions and employers at the Labour Law Reform Conference

Carmo Sousa Machado and Gonçalo Delicado, speaking on separate panels, argued for the need to establish broad-based agreements and mutual understanding between employers, the state, and trade unions to ensure a stable labour law framework for all stakeholders.

The lawyers took part as speakers at the Labour Law Reform Conference, organised by ECO, which featured Maria de Palma Ramalho, Minister for Labour, and José António Vieira da Silva, former Minister for Labour. The event aimed to discuss the new draft proposal for the Labour Law Reform, bringing together representatives from trade union confederations, legal experts, and employer and business associations.

Carmo Sousa Machado, co-coordinator of the Labour practice area, joined the panel “Flexibility or Precariousness? Changes in Employment Contracts”, where she advocated, among several measures in the new proposal, for the reintroduction of the individual working time account (“banco de horas”).

“Each of us has our own personal and professional rhythm, and I believe we should be given the opportunity to decide whether we want to agree on this [working time account] system individually with our employer, rather than being bound solely by the will of the majority. I don’t believe it harms the majority in any way; on the contrary, I think it benefits those who wish to reach an agreement with their employer,” she stated.

The labour law specialist also noted that it is possible to reach a compromise and a convergence of interests among all representatives of the Social Dialogue Council for the benefit of workers.

“I’m hopeful that, if the measures are well explained and communicated, it will be possible to reach an agreement, despite the positions already taken by both unions. I believe that would be very useful for everyone, because we must move towards what serves the common good of workers. Essentially, without workers there are no companies, but without companies there are no workers either — so I think this balance is crucial,” she explained.

Gonçalo Delicado, in turn, also viewed the Government’s proposed measures positively, pointing out that cases such as opposition to reinstatement should be carefully assessed by the courts. He spoke as part of the panel “Dismissals: Facilitate or Balance?”

“There is, in fact, a sovereign body that determines whether a dismissal was lawful or not, but that same body also assesses whether the circumstances cited by the employer to oppose reinstatement — such as those that are seriously detrimental to the company or disruptive to its operations — are valid. If there are concrete facts that support this, then non-reinstatement may be justified, as reinstatement could disrupt the company’s functioning,” he said.

The Abreu Advogados managing associate also made an appeal: a broad consensus is needed to ensure that both employers and workers can have predictability in their actions.

“There must be stability. Workers and employers need to know what they can count on for an extended period. […] What concerns me is the lack of willingness for conciliation, which requires give and take on both sides, but also long-term regulatory agreements. We had a change in 2019, another in 2023, and now again in 2025. So, in six years we’ve had three changes. This is unmanageable for both workers and employers.”