The Court Granted Part of Act on Manpower Petition

The Constitutional Court declared Article 65 paragraph (7) and Article 66 paragraph (2) letter b of Act 13/2003 on Manpower contradictory conditionally (conditionally unconstitutional) with the Constitution of 1945. "To grant the petition partly," said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD. The trial verdict was in the case number 27/PUU-IX/2011. Petitioner in this case is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Central Electricity Meter Readers Officers Alliance (AP2ML) Indonesia Didik Suprijadi, acting on behalf AP2ML.

In its decision, the Court stated that the phrase "... a specific time work agreement" in Article 65 paragraph (7) and the phrase "... employment agreement for a specified time" in Article 66 paragraph (2) letter b Law Employment contrary to the 1945 all in agreement is not required of transfer of rights protection for workers / laborers who object still works there, although a change of companies that carry out most of the work contract from another company or service company worker / laborer.

"To avoid the distinction between the rights of workers in employer firms with outsourced workers who do the exact same job with the workers on the company’s employer, the employer company must arrange for these outsourced workers receive fair benefits and welfare without working on the company discriminated against by the giver work as provided in Article 64 paragraph (4) in conjunction with Article 66 paragraph (2) letter c of Law 13/2003, "wrote the Court in its decision.

As for Article 65 (7) Employment Law reads, "In terms of the provisions referred to in paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) is not fulfilled, the service of the worker / laborer with the company chartering the receiver turned-employer of the worker / laborer with the company providing the work."

While Article 66 (2) letter b Act on Manpower says, "A service provider worker / laborer for auxiliary service activities or activities not directly related to production processes must meet the following requirements: ... b. employment agreement which applies in the employment relationship as referred to in letter a is a work agreement for a specified time that meets the requirements referred to in Article 59 and / or unspecified time work agreement made in writing and signed by both parties. "

Regarding the rules PKWT (Specific Time Work Agreement) as provided for in Article 59 of the Labor Law which was also tested by the applicant, according to the Court, is the type of employment agreement that is designed to work that is meant only for a certain time only and does not last forever, so that the working relationship between workers and employers will end once the time period expires or when the work was completed. The Court stated that the provision does not conflict with the Constitution.

"Besides, if there is a violation of Article 59 of the Act a quo it was a matter of implementation and not a question of constitutionality of norms that can be filed a civil lawsuit in another court," said the Court.

"To protect the interests of the workers / laborers are in a weakened state because of the many job-seekers in Indonesia, the Government’s role becomes very important to monitor the abuse of the provisions of Article 59 of the Act a quo, for example, do PKWT with worker / laborer when the type and nature of the work does not meet conditions stipulated Act."

In essence, according to the Court, the workers / laborers who perform work in outsourcing companies should not lose his rights protected by the constitution. To that end, the Court must ensure that the employment relationship between workers / laborers to carry out the outsourcing company outsourcing the work carried out while ensuring the protection of the rights of workers / laborers, and the use of outsourcing models are not misused by the company only to the interests and profits of the company without notice, even sacrificing, the rights of workers / laborers.

"Based on these considerations, to avoid the corporate exploitation of workers / labor only for the sake of business profits without regard to the guarantee and protection of the rights of workers / laborers to get jobs and decent wages, and to minimize the loss of constitutional rights of outsourced workers, Court needs to determine the protection and guarantee of rights for workers / laborers, "said the Court. (Dodi / mh/

Tuesday, January 17, 2012 | 16:32 WIB 150