Constitutional Court (MK) held a session of Judicial Article 155 paragraph (2) Act No. 13 of 2003 on Employment to heard the statement of the Government on Wednesday (27 / 7). Plenary session was chaired by Achmad Sodiki on case number 37/PUU-IX/2011.

 

Representatives from the government were Mualimin Abdi (Ministry of Law and Human Rights), Heni Susila Wardaya (Ministry of Law and Human Rights), Budiman (Manpower), Hutri (Manpower), Agung (Manpower), and Liana (Kemenkumham).

 

On that occasion, Mualimin Abdi became a spokesman for the government. He read out the government’s response on the petition are considered articles that were tested contained the meaning that the worker is entitled to wages and other rights to the fall of that decision remains binding and in the process of industrial relations disputes.

In addition Petitioner also assume the absence of a strict interpretation of the provisions of Article 155 paragraph (2) Employment Act, mainly of the phrase “not defined”. According to government, instead of Article 155 paragraph (2) of Act 13 of 2003 on Employment was to be one form of protection to the workforce. “So according to government saving, precisely the provisions of Article 155 paragraph (2) it provides a certainty. So actually the norms to give certainty to employers is not broken and still meet its obligation to give rights to workers during the dispute process in the industrial relations court itself, “said Mualimin.

 

Mualimin explained that the working relationship between employers and workers are often disputes arise that can lead to a termination of employment. Before deciding the employment relationship, employers are required to negotiate the purpose of the relevant termination of employment with the unions, unions or directly with the workers concerned if it does not become union members or union.

 

Next, still as recited by Mualimin, the termination settlement negotiations between employers and workers if it does not reach an agreement, the employer can only terminate the employment of workers after obtaining the establishment of the Institute of Industrial Relations Disputes Settlement.

 

“The process of settlement of industrial disputes, as determined in Act No. 2 of 2004 concerning Industrial Relations Disputes, it started from bipartite negotiation, mediation, conciliation, or through the arbitrator. And if both parties cannot accept the results of mediation, conciliation, or arbitrator, the parties concerned or can be filed through the Court of Industrial Relations, can even make efforts to appeal to the Supreme Court, “explained Mualimin regarding termination settlement mechanism.

 

Mualimin also asserted that during the process of resolving clash termination of employment, both employers and workers or unions, then in accordance with the provisions of Article 155 paragraph (2) Employment Act, the employee or the employer still must perform all its obligations and still get their rights. Even so, Mualimin acknowledged, in practice often found that termination of employment prior to any decision binding the businessman “rogue” is not doing his duty again.

 

“The government thinks so is there in the field or the order of implementation should be informed to the Ministry of Labor because the Ministry of Labor also has what is called by investigators to conduct the assessment, to do research, why entrepreneurs do not do or not to implement the duty- obligations to the workers themselves, your honor, “said Mualimin. (Yusti Nurul Agustin/mh/Yazid.tr)

Wednesday, July 27, 2011 | 19:58 WIB 152