The short answer is: as of August 26, 2026, there is no general federal rule in force requiring every private company to disclose the salary or salary range in each job posting. A vacancy that says only "salary negotiable," therefore, is not automatically illegal for that reason. What often causes confusion is that there are, at the same time, a bill proposing exactly that obligation and a law already in force on equal pay and pay transparency, but the two instruments deal with different things.
Short answer: a job posting without salary does not, by itself, violate a general federal obligation
Brazilian labor law contains rules on equal pay, discrimination, contractual salary, and remuneration transparency. That does not, however, amount to a general order requiring the compensation amount to appear in every job posting open to the public.
In practice, a company may advertise an opportunity without disclosing compensation and discuss the amount during the recruitment process, provided it complies with the other applicable rules. Leaving the range out of the posting may be poor practice for transparency in hiring and may drive candidates away, but those recruitment consequences do not, by themselves, turn the omission into a violation of general federal law.
This conclusion must be separated from two different questions: what PL 1.149/2022 seeks to create and what Law 14.611/2023 already requires from companies.
What PL 1.149/2022 would change if approved
Bill PL 1.149/2022 was introduced in Brazil's Chamber of Deputies with a proposal to require private or public companies, when offering job vacancies, to state the corresponding salary range and the other requirements of the vacancy. The text also covers professional outplacement companies.
The original proposal provides for a fine of five minimum wages for noncompliance, doubled in the event of repeat violations. This detail appears on pages and in news stories about the topic and can create the impression that the obligation already exists. It does not yet exist as a federal rule in force: it is a provision in a bill.
On the Chamber's official record consulted on August 26, 2026, PL 1.149/2022 still had the status "Awaiting Appointment of a Rapporteur to the Labor Committee (CTRAB)." Therefore, it has not begun to produce the obligation it proposes. To become law, it still depends on the legislative process, and its text may be changed during consideration.
Why Law 14.611/2023 is not a rule about job postings
Law 14.611, of July 3, 2023, addresses equal pay and remuneration criteria between women and men. It strengthens mechanisms for transparency, enforcement, reporting channels, promotion of diversity, and measures to address unjustified pay differences.
The most visible part of the law is the obligation for private-law legal entities with 100 or more employees to publish semiannual Salary Transparency and Remuneration Criteria Reports. These reports use anonymized data and information that allow salaries, compensation, and the distribution of positions between women and men to be compared.
This mechanism does not require a company to put the compensation for each vacancy in the job posting. The transparency provided for in Law 14.611 is linked to comparing remuneration data and identifying inequalities, especially between women and men, not to disclosing a salary range in every published job opportunity.
What companies with 100 or more employees need to do Decree 11.795/2023 regulated Law 14.611 and detailed the Salary Transparency Report.
The regulation provides for the use of information on contractual salary and other remuneration components, always within the report model and with protection of personal data.
MTE Ordinance 3.714/2023 establishes that the Ministry of Labor and Employment prepares the report based on eSocial data and supplementary information provided through the Emprega Brasil Portal. Disclosure is semiannual and must reach employees and the general public. Again, the subject is the company report, not an individual job posting.
Why the 6th Report in 2026 causes confusion
On August 3, 2026, the Ministry of Labor and Employment reported that employers with 100 or more employees had to update, between August 3 and 31, information for preparation of the 6th Salary Transparency and Remuneration Criteria Report. The notice mentions remuneration criteria, diversity actions, and initiatives supporting family and parenthood.
This recent cycle helps explain why "pay transparency" returned to the debate in 2026. The duty related to the report is real and is being carried out, but it should not be turned into a rule the law did not write. A company required to participate in the report is not, by that law, a company required to disclose salary in every job posting.
Can a job posting without salary be irregular for another reason?
There may be legal problems in a recruitment process, but they must be identified for the correct reason. The fact that a vacancy does not show compensation does not authorize discrimination, prohibited unequal treatment, or noncompliance with a specific rule applicable to that hiring.
Omitting salary does not authorize discrimination
The CLT, in Article 461, establishes the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, within the legal criteria, without distinction based on sex, ethnicity, nationality, or age. Law 14.611 reinforces equal pay between women and men and creates additional transparency and enforcement mechanisms.
This means a company cannot use the lack of public disclosure of a salary range as justification for discriminatory practices. One thing is not publishing the amount in the posting; another, very different thing, is paying on a discriminatory basis or violating the equal-pay rules applicable to the employment relationship.
Public notices, specific rules, and collective bargaining instruments deserve review
The answer "there is no general federal obligation" does not eliminate the need to analyze the specific situation. Recruitment processes tied to public notices, rules specific to a given activity, or clauses in collective bargaining instruments may impose their own requirements. When the question concerns a specific vacancy, it is worth checking the notice, the applicable collective bargaining agreement or convention, and sector regulation before concluding that no additional information was required.
This caveat also prevents the opposite mistake: turning a particular rule into an obligation for every company in the country.
How to read a job posting without salary without confusing law and recruitment practice
First, identify whether the claim cites a law or a bill
If a publication says that "companies are now required to disclose the salary range," look for the number of the rule and check whether it is a law in force or a bill still under consideration. In the case of PL 1.149/2022, the proposal is direct, but its legislative process has not yet ended.
Older news about the bill's introduction can continue appearing in searches years later and may look current when read without checking its legislative status. The Chamber's official record is the safest reference for determining whether the proposal has advanced.
Next, check what the rule actually requires to be disclosed
The expression "pay transparency" is broad and may suggest that every salary should be exposed. Law 14.611 uses the concept in a specific regulatory sense, involving reports, remuneration criteria, data comparison, and measures against pay inequality.
That is why the correct question is not merely "does the law talk about transparency?" but "what information must be disclosed, by whom, in which document, and at what point?" Once the rule is read this way, it becomes easier to see that a transparency report and a job posting are different stages.
Finally, treat transparency in hiring as a practice, not a general obligation
Disclosing a salary range can improve the quality of applications, reduce unproductive steps, and allow candidates to assess early whether the opportunity makes sense. None of that requires a general legal obligation in order to be good recruitment practice.
Likewise, a candidate may ask about the range before moving forward with interviews or tests. The company's answer helps the candidate decide whether to continue, but that practical negotiation should not be confused with a federal requirement that, as of August 2026, still has not been created for all job postings.
What changes if PL 1.149/2022 advances
If the bill is approved and enacted with its central obligation preserved, the situation changes because disclosure of the salary range would then have a specific legal basis for job offers covered by the final text. Only then would it make sense to analyze who is subject to the rule, when it takes effect, what exceptions exist, and what sanction was actually approved.
Until then, it is not correct to present the wording proposed in 2022 as if it were an obligation already in force. Bills may be approved, rejected, shelved, joined to other bills, or amended, and their status must be checked at the time of consultation.
Conclusion: transparency is desirable, but the general obligation still does not exist
In 2026, a company that publishes a vacancy without disclosing salary or a salary range does not, solely because of that omission, violate a general federal obligation to disclose it in the posting. PL 1.149/2022 proposes creating that requirement, but it remains under consideration in Brazil's Chamber of Deputies.
Law 14.611/2023 is in force and created important obligations concerning equal pay and pay transparency, including semiannual reports for private companies with 100 or more employees. Its scope, however, is different: the law addresses remuneration transparency and the fight against inequality, not a requirement that every published vacancy display a salary range.
For a specific opportunity, the safest reading is to separate three layers: the general federal rule, any specific rule applicable to that recruitment process, and the company's recruitment policy. This distinction prevents both treating a vacancy as illegal merely because it says "negotiable" and using the absence of a salary range as an excuse to ignore labor rights that are already in force.
