Principal Applicant Chairul Ellen Kurniawan with Applicant’s Witness Wahdanang was being interviewed at judicial review session on Act of Industrial Relation Dispute Resolution on Wednesday (22/4) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

Further session of judicial review on Act Number 2 Year 2004 of Industrial Relation Dispute Resolution (Undang-Undang Penyelesaian Perselisihan Hubungan Industrial –UU PPHI) was held by the Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) with agenda hearing the Applicant’s witness testimony on Tuesday afternoon (22/4) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. One of the witnesses, an ad hoc judge of industrial relation court of Tanjung Pinang District Cout (Pengadilan Negeri Tanjung Pinang) was absent. Therefore, the Applicant only presented Wahdanang as witness once a permanent worker.  

At the session, Wahdanang stated that he had been work for seven years at a company. However in 2012, he and his colleagues –at amount to 368 workers– were laid off because of the strike. He and his colleagues didn’t obtain their rights after the layoff. “We are ignored without any attention either in form of salary or other allowances, nothing,” explains Wahdanang in front of Justice Panel led by Chief Justice Arief Hidayat. 

Wahdanang also stated that the company who conduct layoff didn’t file lawsuit to the Industrial Relation Court (Pengadilan Hubungan Industrial –PHI). Wahdanang said the lawsuit was instead filed by the workers. However, only five workers of all lay-off workers could file the lawsuit because they have complete data; worker union card, identity card, and worker company card. However, the lawsuit was eventually unacceptable (niet ontvankelijke verklaard). “Because at that time, it was requested in the lawsuit that the memorandum (nota dinas) to have legal force but the judges answered the PHI had no authority for it,” explained Wahdanang.  

Responding on the explanation, Head of Manpower and Transmigration Ministry’s Legal Bureau for litigation (Kasubag Litigasi Biro Hukum Kementerian Tenaga Kerja dan Transmigrasi) Umar Kasim as the Government representative explained that the lawsuit was actually could be authorized to workers union. “Act Number 21 Year 2000 (Undang-Undang Serikat Pekerja/Serikat Buruh) states the lawsuit is authorized to the workers union, why you don’t utilize that authority,” said Umar while asking whether the witness was also part of five workers who filed the lawsuit.

Answering the question, Wahdanang reveals he was not part of the workers who filed the lawsuit, because his identity card (Kartu Tanda Penduduk –KTP) was expired at that time. However he asserted he followed the court proceedings.  

At the session, the Applicant gave additional evidences in which there was PHI verdict that inspect industrial relation dispute with the petition mechanism (voluntair). 

Previously, the case registered with number 20/PUU-XIII/2015 was filed by Muhammad Hafidz, et al. as the workers. The Applicant felt detrimental and/or potentially harmed by the implementation of contentiosa lawsuit mechanism for dispute resolution in the PHI because it caused injustice for laborers/workers. The injustice occurred because the laborers/workers will be compelled to file lawsuit, whereas the laborers/workers had imbalance resources. The Applicant considered the contentiosa lawsuit mechanism as stipulated on UU PPHI was more advantageous to the employers. (Triya IR/Prasetyo Adi N.)