Judicial officials have filed a petition protesting the agreement signed with the government.

A group of judicial officials are promoting a petition protesting the government’s agreement with the Judicial Service Union (SFJ), arguing that it is unsatisfactory and that other degrees should be debated in parliament.

According to a document that Lusa had access to this Friday, the initiative aims to force the “schedule of debate and vote on bills” presented by Bloco de Esquerda and PCP. The blockers propose the payment of the procedural supplement (recovery of pending processes) for 14 months and retroactively to January 2021, while the communists defend the payment of this supplement for 14 months and its inclusion in the salary.

“Modern society requires constant vigilance over the actions of the government, especially when it comes to decisions that directly affect professional categories. In this context, it is essential that all justice officials come together to address the plenary session of the Assembly of the Republic for debate and vote,” the petition says.

According to the initiators of the initiative, these two diplomas are considered “essential for the professional future, since the agreement signed between the government and the Judicial Workers’ Union (SFJ) does not adequately respond to the expectations, desires and problems that affect the profession.”

Among the main criticisms of the agreement signed in June between the government and SFJ, according to the petition, are the “unreliability of the limited-term agreement”, the “withdrawal for integration” of the procedural recovery addendum upon expiration of the term, and the failure to pay the amount retroactively to January 2021.

“The bills sponsored by the BE and PCP parliamentary groups are aimed precisely at correcting the injustices not included in the agreement signed between the government and the SFJ,” the prosecutors also said, stressing that “the approval of these bills will have a positive effect and significant impact on the profession.”

When asked by Luce about the petition, the president of the Justice Workers Union (SOJ), Carlos Almeida, stressed that SOJ is not the promoter of the petition circulating among professionals throughout the country, but assured that the union is considered in the document.

“We said that it is actually important that parliament can also express its position on the bills that are in parliament for voting, and remember that the SDP itself in the past had a bill identical to those that will be assessed,” he stressed.

Carlos Almeida also stressed that this action does not fit into the “inorganic movements” of the judicial class, but rather into the “full implementation of democracy.”

On June 5, the government reached an agreement with SFJ that would increase the collection surcharge from 10% of wages paid for 11 months to 13.5% of wages paid for 12 months, starting on June 1.

However, the agreement was not signed by the SOJ, which had already declared an indefinite strike and proposed to the Ministry of Justice to increase the cost of the procedural surcharge for collection from 13.5% to 15%, also demanding that this amount be integrated into the salaries of judicial employees.