Termination or layoff (PHK) Provision when the company merged (merge) in Employment Act be multiple interpretations. According to the Petitioners, Dunung Wijanarko and Wawan Adi Swi Yanto, Article 163 paragraph (1) Labor Law has impaired his constitutional rights. "Since eliminating the right of workers or workers in applying for termination of employment," said Attorney Applicant P. Sanjaya Samosir, in Case No. 117/PUU-X/2012, Wednesday (19/12) at the Plenary Court.

Article 163 paragraph (1) Law no. 13 Year 2003 PT workers in question. ABB Transmission & Distribution reads, "Employer may terminate the employment of workers / laborers in case of change of status, merger, consolidation, or change of ownership of the company and the workers / laborers are unwilling to continue their employment, the worker / laborer is entitled to severance pay amounting to 1 (one) time in accordance with Article 156 paragraph (2), award money working period of 1 (one) time Article 156 (3) and compensation according to the provisions in Article 156 (4). "

Petitioner argued, the words "... to ..." in the article implies that it is unclear and indecisive, giving rise to different interpretations, both by employees (applicant) and employers. "Because the word" may "in Article 163 paragraph (1) is voluntary so companies interpret that he is entitled ‘to do’ or ‘not to do’ layoffs," wrote the Petitioner in his petition. In other words, according to the Petitioner, the article could be interpreted that the employer has the absolute authority to make layoffs or downsizing.

In fact, Sanjaya said, the actual position of Article stretcher workers / laborers and companies fairly. If the worker does not wish to continue working in the company after the merger, the company would be doing layoffs of workers. And workers receive their rights as specified in the Labor Law.

"It is obvious to ignore recognition, security, protection, legal certainty and a fair and equal treatment before the law for workers who are not willing to continue their employment with the company resulting from this combination, because the right to compensation received layoff workers when qualified resigned much more slightly compared to the entitlements in the event of layoffs under Article 163 paragraph (1) Labor Law," said the applicant.

Based on these arguments, the appeal petition, the Petitioner asks the Court to declare that the provisions of the reviewed against the 1945 Constitution, all employers should be interpreted not terminate the employment of workers / laborers are unwilling to continue their employment, the worker / laborer is entitled to severance pay amounting to 1 (one) time in accordance with Article 156 paragraph (2), gratuity 1 (one) of Article 156 (3), and compensation according to the provisions in Article 156 (4). "The provisions of Article 163 paragraph (1) Labor Law contrary to Article 27 paragraph (2) and Article 28D paragraph (1) and (2) of the Constitution of 1945," said Sanjaya Samosir.

After listening to the points the petition, the Petitioner then had given advice and suggestions to improve the application by the Panel of Judges consisting of Constitutional Justice Harjono (Panel Chair), Ahmad and Anwar Usman Sodiki. "The reason why civil rights in the Constitution has been lost, you try to describe it," said Harjono. (Dodi)