Commentary: Indonesian Government Again Needs to Better Implement ILO Conventions Nos. 87 and 98

Abstract

The Union claimed the management of PT Champ Resto Indonesia, the Company, a multi-location chain restaurant, discriminated against it and the workers by unilaterally transferring Union leaders to remote locations, denying a maternity leave to a worker, dismissing 89 workers after a peaceful protest against Company policies, and other anti-union intimidation. The Union made repeated claims with the Ministry of Manpower about these alleged activities and asked for statutory mediation After several months, the Ministry responded and authorized mediation in three provinces.

The Company claimed it did not intimidate or discriminate against Union workers or leaders; that it negotiated a collective bargaining contract within months of request, and as employer it had the right to transfer workers for business reasons, which it did. It claimed it did not deny maternity leave to a worker and was not in violation of a health insurance registration law.

The three mediations in the Labour Department found violations and recommended reinstatement and back pay. The Company refused to implement these, and the Union appealed to the Industrial Relations Courts in the three provinces.

The Jakarta Court held no violation as the Company’s right to transfer takes precedence over ILO Convention No. 87. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissals. The Bandung Court held the dismissals were not illegal because the dismissed protesters failed to follow the law to mediate rather than openly demonstrate. Some workers reached a settlement receiving severance pay. The appeals of this case and the Banten Court decision to the Supreme Court was still not decided.

The Government indicates it is committed to ILO Conventions 87 and 98. The Government stated there was insufficient evidence of discrimination regarding the transfers, intimidation, or refusal to provide rights to the pregnant worker. There was no violation of the registration for the health insurance law. The rights of the dismissed workers are settled by agreement and differing court decisions are not unusual.

Committee Recommendations include urging greater protection of workers’ associational rights, particularly in cases of worker transfers, and legislating against employer rules that interfere with these rights, urging the courts to conclude the pending cases, and to provide information on all.

Keywords: Indonesian Government, ILO Conventions, International Labor Rights Case Law