The phrase "close company" in the Act No. 13 of 2003 on Employment, to the extent not contrary to the constitution meant "the company permanently closed or not closed the company for a while". So declared by the Constitutional Court decision No. 19/PUU-IX/2011, the verdict was read in court on Wednesday (20/6) at the Plenary Court courtroom.

"Arguments of the Petitioners argued in part according to the law," said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD. In this case, the Petitioners’ petition is granted in part.

Article 164 paragraph (3) Labor Law states, "Employers can do a termination of employment of workers / laborers because the company closed not because of a loss of 2 (two) years in a row or not because circumstances force (force majeure), but the company made efficiency with the workers / laborers are entitled to severance pay amounting to 2 (two) times of Article 156 (2), cash gratuity for 1 (one) of Article 156 paragraph (3), and compensation pay for Article 156 (4) ".

"Problems faced by the Petitioners, the Court cannot be determined solely from the application of law is found not merely given a clear and rigid definition of the phrase ‘close company’ in Law 13/2003 if the company closed in question is closed permanently or merely a temporary cap. Elucidation of Article 164 of Law 13/2003 simply states ‘quite clear’, "said Court.

Thus, the Court continued, anyone can interpret it in accordance with the norms of their own interests, for example, consider a temporary closure of the company to do the renovations are part of the efficiency and make it as a base to do layoffs. Different interpretations can lead to different legal settlement in its application, as any worker whose employment may be decided on the basis of the company at any time close temporarily or cease operations temporarily. "It thus can create legal uncertainty for the continuity of employment for the worker / workers in carrying out his work, which is contradictory to Article 28D Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution," said Court.

Court’s opinion, layoffs are a last resort in an effort to make the efficiency of the company having previously made other efforts in the framework of such efficiencies. Accordingly, the company could not do before layoffs take some effort.

These efforts have also been determined by the Court, namely: (a) reduce the wage level of workers and facilities above, for example, the managers and directors, (b) reduce the shift; (c) limiting / eliminating overtime; (d) reduce working hours (e) reducing the working day, (f) dismiss or lay off workers / laborers in rotation for a while; (g) or not to extend the contract for workers who are out of contract, and (h) provides pensions for those already qualified.

"Due to the nature of labor should be viewed as one of the company’s assets, without closing the company’s efficiency in terms as considered in paragraph [3.21] can be used as an excuse not to do layoffs," said Court.

The applicant in this case is the former employee Papandayan Hotel Bandung. They feel aggrieved because of the termination of employment by the Bandung Hotel Papandayan the use of article 164 paragraph (3) Labor Law as the reason for layoffs. At that time, the hotel reason was for the efficiency of the renovation. (Dodi / mh/Yazid.tr)