---

Principal Applicant, Edwin Hartana Hutabarat accompanied by Baritanyus Sumanbatu and Setya Maulid Baruregar as interpreter delivers petition points via video conference from Universitas Sumatera Utara at preliminary session on Act of Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement, on Tuesday (6/10) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Gani

 

 

 

The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) holds preliminary session on Act Number 2 Year 2004 of Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement, on Tuesday (6/10) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. A disable worker, Edwin Hartana Hutabarat files the petition which registered in Case Number 116/PUU-XIII/2015. The Applicant reviews Article 82 Act of Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement which regulates layoff lawsuit filing deadline.

Article 82 Act a quo stated:

“Layoff lawsuit by workers/labors as referred in Article 159 and Article 171 Act Number 13 Year 2003 of Manpower, may be filed within one year since the date of receipt or announcement of layoff decision from the employer” (“Gugatan oleh pekerja/buruh atas pemutusan hubungan kerja sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 159 dan Pasal 171 Undang-Undang Nomor 13 Tahun 2003 tentang Ketenagakerjaan, dapat diajukan hanya dalam tenggang waktu 1 (satu) tahun sejak diterimanya atau diberitahukannya keputusan dari pihak pengusaha.”)

 

Representing by Barita Sumanbatu as interpreter, the Applicant considers harmed by such provision. The Applicant laid off on September 12, 2014, therefore the lawsuit deadline expired. However, the Applicant admits his struggle in obtaining worker’s rights is yet completed within one year.

“I still willing to sent letter to related parties in order to seek justice, so I can win my case and my rights granted, in form of severance pay, employment gratuity, compensation on fee shortage, and holiday allowance since 2006 until 2014, and other compensations as regulated by Act of Manpower. However, my opportunity is restricted and closed by Article 82,” said the Applicant.  

According to the Applicant, one cause of slow lawsuit process is because the partiality of Medan Manpower and Social Office’s (Dinas Sosial dan Tenaga Kerja –Dinsosnaker) Head and the mediator. The Applicant assesses the partiality has harmed him and benefited his company management. “They don’t grant my rights as it supposed to be. I have been wrote letter for Medan Manpower and Social Office’s Head three times in order to request fair justice, but my request is ignored until now,” said him.   

Nowadays, the Applicant cannot file new lawsuit to Medan Industrial Relations Court because the lawsuit filing deadline is over after September 12, 2015, based on Article 82 Act a quo. “Today, my struggle for justice is useless,” added him.

Thus, the Applicant requests the Court to add norm in Article 16 Act a quo, which is the addition of paragraph (2) saying, “The mediator or manpower office shall pay compensation to workers/labors who have complained to the office if the mediator or the office are not neutral, harm workers or labors, and beneficial to the company, remove workers’ rights and demands, in form of severance pay, employment gratuity, compensation on fee shortage, and holiday allowance, and/or redress and harm, in recommendation letter,” (“Mediator atau pihak dinas tenaga kerja wajib membayar ganti rugi atau uang tanggung jawab kepada pekerja atau buruh yang telah mengadu kepada dinas tenaga kerja apabila tidak netral, menghilangkan hak-hak dan tuntutan pekerja atau buruh berupa uang pesangon, penghargaan masa kerja, penggantian hak kekurangan upah, dan tunjangan hari raya dan/atau ganti rugi dan merugikan pekerja atau buruh, serta menguntungkan pihak perusahaan di dalam surat anjuran.”).

The Applicant also requests the Court to declare Article 82 Act of Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement contrary to the 1945 Constitution and contrary to Act Number 4 Year 1997 of Disabled Persons and Government Regulation of Improving Social Welfare for Disabled Persons.

Responding the petition, Justice Panel led by Constitutional Justice Maria Farida Indrati and accompanied by Constitutional Justice Aswanto and Constitutional Justice Manahan MP Sitompul says the Constitutional Court is judicial institution which authorized to review the constitutionality of Acts towards the 1945 Constitution. Thus, it is inappropriate if the Applicant requests the Court to declare the norms reviewed contrary to Act of Disabled Persons and Government Regulation Number 43 Year 1998.

“The Constitutional Court is only authorized on reviewing Acts towards the 1945 Constitution, instead of towards other Acts, Government Regulation or Court Verdict,” said Maria.

Justice Panel also says that the petition is on concrete case, so the Applicant is needed to shorten the petition by showing the impact of Article reviewed. “What is the reason of your statement saying Article 82 contrary to the 1945 Constitution? You shall explain on that,” said Maria. (Lulu Hanifah/IR/Prasetyo Adi N)

---