Petitioner of Temporary Employment Agreement in Job Creation Law Adds Work Experience
Image

Leonardo Siahaan conveying the petition’s revisions at the panel material judicial review hearing of Law No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation, Tuesday (7/4/2023). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.


JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held an examination hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 6 of 2023 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law (Perppu) No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation into Law on Tuesday, July 4, 2023. The case No. 61/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by Leonardo Siahaan, a private employee, who challenges Article 56 paragraph (3) of the Job Creation Law, which reads, “The term or completion of a certain job as referred to in paragraph (2) shall be determined based on an employment agreement.”

Before the panel chaired by Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah, Siahaan said of the petition revisions, “First, I have revised the subject matter. I mistakenly wrote Article 256 when it was supposed to be Article 56 paragraph (3). I have revised this and the typos.”

The Petitioner also submitted evidence P-4, i.e. a letter of proof of employment. “The second explanation of legal standing has also been revised. [I] cannot do much about companies who set an employment contract for five years or more because the company or employer would argue that they have followed statutory legislation. The Law has also given employers freedom to extend permanent employment agreement for five years or more,” he said.

Also read: Temporary Employment Agreement in Job Creation Law Challenged

The Petitioner argued that for anyone in productive age, despite not having been employed, they would potentially work. He realized that the enactment of Article 56 paragraph (3) of the Job Creation Law has led to the extension of temporary employment agreements (PKWT), which clearly has not fixed term and number of extension time. With PKWT having no time limit and clear number of the times it is extended, there will be exploitation of workers. When employers see the a quo article, they will think they can extend the PKWT contract for more than ten years and even more than twice. In fact, if we look at the old Manpower Law, it is very clear that the maximum term for a PKWT is three years and can be extended only once. However, Article 56 paragraph (3) of [the Job Creation Law stipulates] that it does not have a time limit and there is no provision on how many times PKWT can be extended. This means that someone who is elderly can have their employment term extended until they become a permanent employee.

After comparing the norm to previous norms, the Petitioner asserted, the a quo article has not regulated temporary employment. Therefore, he requests that the Court declare Article 56 paragraph (3) of the Job Creation Law unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as not interpreted as “A temporary employment agreement based on a certain period can be set for a maximum of 2 (two) years and can only be extended 1 (one) time for a maximum of 1 (one) year or 1 (one) time.”

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.


Tuesday, July 04, 2023 | 15:37 WIB 145