Provisions of Article 163 of the Labor Law have been providing legal certainty that is fair to workers and employers. This was stated by General Litigation of Ministry of Law and Human Rights Mualimin Abdi represents the Government in the trial judicial review of Act No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower on Wednesday (27/2).

"The meaning of the word "may" according to the government in the provision of Article 163 paragraph (1) Employment Act, according to the government has been providing legal certainty and fairness for workers or workers and employers," said Mualimin in front of judges, chaired by the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Moh . Mahfud MD.

Not related to the issue of the constitutionality of the validity of the norm, but it relates to the application of the norm, in this case, both parties to the dispute have filed a case in the Industrial Relations Court made the applicant has received the decision of the Industrial Relations Court rejected the claim. "If the applicant wants to appeal, it can be done through the Supreme Court. So according to this Government is not the authority of the Constitutional Court," said Mualimin.

Mualimin explained well in case of corporate action status change, merger, consolidation, or change of ownership of the company, the entrepreneur can make layoffs and worker or workers are not willing to continue their employment when there is a restructuring that resulted in the repositioning of rotation within the specified time period. In other words, continued Mualimin, related to the termination of employment by reason of a corporate action as mentioned above, the employer can only terminate if the organization after the restructuring.

"Because of the organization’s happening downsizing or downsizing and efficiency of human resources or do rotations or mutations in the framework of qualifications and competence of work adjustment. Job competence, ie the workers or laborers in accordance with the formation of the work and management needs. That is, not because of layoffs like it or not," he said.

However, Mualimin add the word "may" is to be conditional, i.e. there must be a restructuring and repositioning or rotation. In the event of restructuring, rotation, or repositioning and led directly to the worker or workers concerned, particularly with regard to working conditions, rights and obligations, then the employer must pay workers’ rights or labor if the person concerned is not willing to continue the working relationship as defined in Article 161 paragraph (1) Labor Law in conjunction with Article 156 paragraph (2), subsection (3), and paragraph (4) Employment Act.

In addition, according to Mualimin if the article is removed, it will cause things such as chaos, especially for companies that have gone public, resulting in the loss of protection of the balance between workers and employers or workers. "According to the Government, the word" may "as requested by the applicant is correct and has been able to protect and provide a balance between workers or workers with employers," he said.

In the principal appeal, Dunung Wijanarko and Wawan Adi Dwi Yanto as Petitioners argue that their constitutional rights have been violated due to the enactment of Article 163 paragraph 1 of the Labor Law. The loss of constitutional rights of the applicant as a result of indecision Article 163 paragraph (1) Labor Law related to the rights of workers / laborers in the merged company. Such provisions should be interpreted as if the workers / laborers are unwilling to continue their employment in the event of a merger, change of status, or smelting in the company, the employer is doing layoffs of workers concerned with giving the right of workers / laborers in accordance with the provisions set out in it. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh)