Os fundamentos do antitruste para mercados de trabalho

Article Sidebar

PDF (Português (Brasil))
Published: Nov 2, 2023
Keywords:
competition law, labor economics, monopsony, anticompetitive practices, wage-fixing cartels, no-poach agreements, sensitive information sharing

Main Article Content

Olavo Severo Guimarães
Victor Cavalcanti Couto
João Ricardo Oliveira Munhoz

Abstract

Through a review of the legal and economic literature and of U.S. case law, this article analyzes the economic foundations and legal aspects involving the application of antitrust law in labor markets. Issues related to the delineation of relevant markets and the analysis of market power and potentially anticompetitive conduct are presented. We conclude that the tools that already exist in competition law are suitable to enable antitrust scrutiny in labor markets. It is also noted that the U.S. experience offers relevant jurisprudential guidelines for Brazil, but caveats are necessary to respect the different traditions among the jurisdictions.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Severo Guimarães, O., Cavalcanti Couto, V., & Oliveira Munhoz, J. R. (2023). Os fundamentos do antitruste para mercados de trabalho. Revista Do IBRAC, (1), 110–132. Retrieved from https://revista.ibrac.org.br/index.php/revista/article/view/20
Issue
No. 1 (2022)
Section
Artigos para Revista do IBRAC
Author Biographies

Olavo Severo Guimarães

Advogado no escritório Mudrovitsch Advogados e mestre em Economia (UFRGS).

Victor Cavalcanti Couto

Advogado associado no Mudrovitsch Advogados. Especialista em Direito Empresarial (Fundação Getúlio Vargas). Bacharel em Direito (UFPE). Certificado em Compliance-Anticorrupção (CPC-A). Membro da comissão de estudos da Concorrência e Regulação (OAB-SP).

João Ricardo Oliveira Munhoz

Advogado no escritório Mudrovitsch Advogados. Mestrando em Direito no Departamento de Direito Econômico da Universidade de São Paulo (USP).

References

AREEDA, Phillip E.; HOVENKAMP, Herbert. Antitrust Law: an analysis of antitrust principles and their application. Vol. VII. 2.ed. Wolters Kluwers, 2003.

BRASIL. CONSELHO ADMINISTRATIVO DE DEFESA ECONÔMICA. Guia de análise de atos de concentração horizontal. Brasília, CADE, 2016. Disponível em: https://cdn.cade.gov.br/Portal/centrais-de-conteudo/publicacoes/guias-do-cade/guia-para analise-de-atos-de-concentracao-horizontal.pdf. Acesso em: 10/01/2022.

BRASIL. SECRETARIA DE ACOMPANHAMENTO ECONÔMIDO. Introdução ao Direito da Concorrência. Brasília, SEAE, 2014. Disponível em:

https://www.gov.br/fazenda/pt-br/centrais-de-conteudos/publicacoes/apostilas/advocacia-da-concorrencia/4-seae_introducao_direito_concorrencia.pdf. Acesso em 02/01/2022.

CADE. Processo Administrativo nº 08012.003021/2005-72, instaurado em 09 de julho de 2015.

CADE. Processo Administrativo nº 08012.002812/2010-42, julgado em 13 de junho de 2018.

CADE. Processo Administrativo nº 08700.006386/2016-53, instaurado em 29 de setembro de 2016.

CADE. Processo Administrativo nº 08700.004548/2019-61, instaurado em 15 de março de 2021.

CADE. Procedimento Preparatório nº 08700.003187/2017-74, instaurado em 25 de maio de 2017.

CORMAN, K.; LENT, K.; REINHART, T. Shifting Enforcement of NoPoaching Agreements. Skadden, abril/2018. Disponível em:https://www.skadden.com/-/media/files/publications/2018/04/quarterlyinsights /shifting_enforcement_of_nopoaching_agreements.pdf. Acesso em: 15/06/2022.

ECONOMICS ONLINE. Monopolistic competition. 2021. Disponível em: https://www.economicsonline.co.uk/business_economics/monopolistic_competition.html/. Acesso em 05/02/2022.

EUA. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. US v. Utah Society for Healthcare Human Resources Administration. 94C282G. Decisão de março de 1994. Disponível em: https://www.justice.gov/atr/case/us-v-utah-society-healthcare-human-resources-administration-et-al. Acesso em 08/03/2022.

EUA. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. US v. Adobe et al. Decisão de 17 de março de 2011. Disponível em: https://www.justice.gov/atr/case/us-v-adobesystems-inc-et-al. Acesso em 04/03//2022.

EUA. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. U.S v. Lucasfilm Ltd., 75 Fed. Reg. 81651, 81655. Dezembro de 2010. Disponível em: https://www.justice.gov/atr/case/us-v-lucasfilm-ltd. Acesso em 12/01/2022.

EUA. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. United States and the State of Arizona v. Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association and AzHHA Service Corporation. 2017. Disponível em: https://www.justice.gov/atr/case/us-and-statearizona-v-arizona-hospital-and-healthcare-association-and-azhha-servicecorp. Acesso em 13/03/2022.

EUA. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. U.S. vs. Surgical Care Affiliates, LLC et al., Case No. 3:21-CR-00011 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 05, 2021). Disponível em: https://www.justice.gov/atr/case/us-v-surgical-care-affiliates-llc-and-scaiholdings-llc. Acesso em 02/04/2022.

EUA. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. Arrington v. Burger King Worldwide, Inc. CASE NO. 18-24128-CIV-MARTINEZ/OTAZO-REYES. Dezembro de 2020. Disponível em: https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/1343466/download. Acesso em: 05/04/2022.

EUA. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. Antitrust Guidance for Human Resource Professionals. 2016. Disponível em: www.justice.gov/atr/file/903511/download. Acesso em 14/05/2022.

EUA. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. U.S. v. Council of Fashion Designers of America. Decisão de 17 outubro 1995. Disponível em:

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/1995/06/councilfashion-designers-america. Acesso em 02/04/2022.

EUA. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. U.S. v. Debes Corporation at al. (Consent Order). Disponível em: www.ftc/gov/sites/default/files/documents/comission_decisons_v.115. Agosto de 1992. Acesso em 03/02/2022.

EUA. NORTHERN DISTRICT COURT OF CALIFORNIA. State of California v. Ebay Inc., Case No.: 5:12-CV-05874-EJD (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2014).

Disponível em: https://casetext.com/case/california-v-ebay-1. Acesso em 05/02/2022.

EUA. NORTHERN DISCRICT COURT OF CALIFORNIA. In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, 856 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 2012 Trade Case. (CCH) 77866 (N.D. Cal. 2012). Disponível em: https://casetext.com/case/in-rehightech-emp-antitrust-litig. Acesso em 01/03/2022.

EUA. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS. Kartell, v. Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc., 749 F.2d 922 (1st Cir. 1984). Disponível em: https://casetext.com/case/kartell-v-blue-shield-of-massachusetts-inc. Acesso em 15/04/2022.

EUA. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS. Wendy Fleischman, et al v. Albany Medical Center, No. 10-846 (2d Cir. 2011). Disponível em: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/10-0846/10-846_opn-2011-05-03.html. Acesso 04/05/2022.

EUA. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS. Williams v. I.B. Fischer Nevada, 999 F.2d 445 (9th Cir. 1993). Disponível em: https://casetext.com/case/williams-v-ib-fischer-nevada. Acesso 11/02/2022.

EUA. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS. Todd v. Exxon Corp. - 275 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2001). Disponível em: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/todd-v-exxon-corporation. Acesso em 03/02/2022.

EUA. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS. Union Circulation Company v. Fed. Trade Com'n, 241 F.2d 652 (2d Cir. 1957). Disponível em:

https://casetext.com/case/union-circulation-company-v-fed-trade-comn. Acesso em 15/04/2021.

EUA. UNITED STATES DISTRIC COURT EASTERN OF ILLINOIS. Reed v. Advocate Health Care. 268 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Ill. 2009). Disponível em:

https://casetext.com/case/reed-v-advocate-health-care-4. Acesso em: 13/03/2022.

EUA. UNITED STATES DISTRIC COURT EASTERN OF NEBRASKA. Maderazo, et al v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P., et al. Disponível em:

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/nebraska/nedce/8:2015cv00348/70528. Acesso em 13/02/2022.

EUA. UNITED STATES DISTRIC COURT NORTHEN OF ILLINOIS. Deslandes v. McDonald's USA, LLC et al. No. 1:2017cv04857. Disponível em: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2017cv04857/341680/53/. Acesso em 02/01/2022.

EUA. UNITED STATES DISTRIC OF MICHIGAN, SOUTHERN DIVISION. Cason–Merenda v. Detroit Med. Ctr., 862 F. Supp. 2d 603 (E.D. Mich.

. Disponível em: https://casetext.com/case/casonmerenda-v-detroitmed-ctr. Acesso em 12/02/2022.

EUA. UNITED STATES DISTRIC OF E.D. TEXAS, SHERMAN JUSTICE. United States v. Jindal. Civil Action 4:20-CR-00358 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 29,

. Disponível em: https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-jindal. Acesso em 03/03/2022.

EUA. UNITED STATES DISTRIC OF E.D. TEXAS, SHERMAN JUSTICE. United States v. Jindal. Civil Action 4:20-CR-00358 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 29,

. Disponível em: https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-jindal. Acesso em 03/03/2022.

EUA. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT TENNESSE WESTERN DIVISION. Clarke v. Baptist Memorial Healthcare Corp., 264 F.R.D. 375 (W.D. Tenn. 2009). Disponível em: https://casetext.com/case/clarke-v-baptist-memorial-healthcare-corp. Acesso em: 06/02/2022.

EUA. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN OF WASHINGTON. Richmond v. Bergey Pullman Inc et al. Case number 2:18-cv-00246.

Disponível em: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/washington/waedce/2:2018cv00246/82233. Acesso em 01/02/2022.

EUA. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. Harris v. CJ Star. No. 2:18-cv-00247-SAB (Carl’s Jr./Hardee’s). Disponível em: https://www.justice.gov/atr/case/ashlie-harris-v-cj-starr-llc-et-al. Acesso em: 06/02/2022.

KRUSE, Layne; RODGERS, Anne; TURNER, Eliot; ‘Energy’, in: The Antitrust Review of the Americas, Global Competition Review, 2019, Londres, Reino Unido. Disponível em: https://globalcompetitionreview.com/review/the-antitrust-review-of-the-americas/the antitrust-review-of-the-americas-2019/article/united-states-energy. Acesso em 04/02/2022.

KRUEGER, A. B.; ASHENFELTER, O. Theory and Evidence on Employer Collusion in the Franchise Sector. National Bureau of Economic Ressearch, julho 2018. Disponivel em: https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/izaizadps/dp11672.htm. Acesso em: 16 setembro 2018.

LAINE, E. Kruse. RODGERS, Anne. TURNER, Elliot. The Antitrust Review of the Americas 2019. Setembro de 2018. Disponível em: https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en-gb/knowledge/publications/e0495164/the-antitrust-review-of-the-americas-2019. Acesso em 01/02/2022.

LINDSAY, M.; STILSON, J.; BERNHARD, R. Employers Beware:The DOJ and FTC Confirm that Naked Wage-Fixing and “No-Poaching” Agreements Are Per Se Antitrust Violations. The Antitrust Source, dezembro 2016.

MARINESCU, Ioana; HOVENKAMP, Herbert. Anticompetitive mergers in labor markets. Ind. LJ, v. 94, p. 1031, 2019. Disponível em: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2967&context=faculty_scholarship. Acesso em 01/01/2022.

NAIDU, Suresh; POSNER, Eric A.; WEYL, Glen. Antitrust remedies for labor market power. Harv. L. Rev., v. 132, p. 536, 2018. Disponível em: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=13776&context=journal_articles. Acesso em 05/04/2022.

OCDE. Competition in Labour Markets, 2020. Disponível em: https://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/competition-concerns-in-labour-markets.htm. Acesso em 11/02/2022.

OCDE. Competition Issues in Labour Markets – Note by BIAC. Documento não classificado, contribuição do Business at OCDE. 2019. Disponível em: https://one.oecd.org/document/DAF/COMP/WD(2019)50/en/pdf. Acesso em 02/02/2022.

ROBINSON, Joan. The Economics of Imperfect Competition. The Economic Journal, Volume 43, Issue 172, 1, Pages 657–661. London, Macmillan. Dezembro de 1933. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.2307/2224510. Acesso em: 15/05/2022.

RUBINFELD, Daniel L.; PINDYCK, Robert S. Microeconomia. Pearson, 2009. Disponível em:https://home.ufam.edu.br/salomao/Introducao%20a%20micro/2a%20Prova/Apostilas/Intromicro%20prova%202%20-%20Pindyck.pdf. Acesso em 03/01/2022.

YOUNG, Cristopher; LEVINE, Jan; Mezzino Robin. No-Poach Franchise Case Dismissed Under Single-Entity Rule. Troutman Paper, abril de 2020. Disponível em: https://www.troutman.com/insights/no-poach-franchise-casedismissed-under-single-entity-rule.html. Acesso em: 08/10/2021.