Petitioner’s witness Ngadinah, worker at a shoes factory in Tangerang in 1995-2004, testifying, Wednesday (12/20/2023). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another material judicial review hearing of Law No. 2 of 2004 on Industrial Relations Disputes Settlement (PPHI Law) on Wednesday, December 20, 2023. The case No. 94/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by Muhammad Hafidz.

The agenda was to hear the testimony of Ngadinah, a witness for the Petitioner, who worked at a shoes factory in Tangerang in 1995 until 2004.

“The wages for workers in the shoe industry, which is labor-intensive, are no more than the minimum wage, unless the company orders them to work overtime. While [I was] working in the shoe factory, the company violated norms such as denying menstruation leave, freedom of association, and so on,” she said at the hearing chaired by Chief Justice Suhartoyo.

In 1999, Ngadinah joined the Footwear Workers’ Association (Perbupas) and was trusted to be its secretary. In September 2000, she and her friends went on strike for four days demanding that the company give them the right to freedom of association, menstrual leave, food allowance, and severance pay.

Then, on April 23, 2001, she was detained in the Tangerang prison for 29 days on charges of committing unpleasant acts and incitement, but was later acquitted by the Court.

“[I] assisted 41 laid off laborers in the industrial relations court in North Jakarta for establishing a labor union from 2008 to 2010. For two years, they fought for their rights by refusing to be laid off. They weren’t paid, so they worked odd jobs to survive,” Ngadinah said.

She said that in order to attend trials, the workers pooled earnings from their odd jobs to pay the court fees. Although not all of the workers were able to contribute, the tiny amount of money collected by those who were not working at the time was saved from skimping on daily meals.

“To laborers, as [I] witnessed myself, collecting money to pay court fees entails setting aside part of their daily meal budgets earned from odd jobs. Some even sell their belongings so that the court could hear their case,” said Ngadinah.

Also read:

Private Employee Questions Employment Lawsuit Court Fees

Private Employee Revises Petition on Employment Lawsuit Fees

Govt: No Constitutionality Issue in PPHI Law

In case No. 94/PUU-XXI/2023, Muhammad Hafidz challenges Article 82 and the phrase “the decision of the Industrial Relations Court” in Article 97 of the PPHI Law.

Article 82 of the PPHI Law reads, “The petition which is filed by the worker/laborer as meant in Article 159 and Article 171 of Law Number 13 of 2003 concerning Manpower may only be submitted within the grace period of 1 (one) year after the decision of the employer is received or informed.”

Article 97 of the PPHI reads, “The obligations that should be carried out and/or the rights that should be received by the parties or by one of the parties on each settlement of the industrial relations dispute are determined in the decision of the Industrial Relations Court.”

The Petitioner explained that the one-year grace period for termination of employment (PHK) lawsuits as stipulated in Article 82 of the PPHI Law is for the reasons referred to in Article 159 and Article 171 of Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower.

Employment Lawsuit Fees

The Petitioner argued that the provisions of Article 58 of the PPHI Law states that the process of litigation in the Industrial Relations Court is not subject to fees as long as the cost is under Rp150,000,000. If the Petitioner wishes to file an employment termination dispute lawsuit to the Industrial Relations Court with a value of severance pay and service pay amounting to Rp330,249,400, he will be charged a case fee, the amount of which has been determined by the Court as an advance court fee.

After paying for the advance court fee, the Industrial Relations Court handed down a verdict to grant the Petitioner’s request and ordered the employer to give the Petitioner his rights. The employer, who lost the case, had to pay for the court fee since the compensation amounted to over Rp150.000.000. The employer implemented the Industrial Relations Court’s decision, which had permanent legal force, but only paid for the Petitioner’s compensation for the employment termination, but objected to the court fee, which the Petitioner had previously paid for as an advance court fee. As such, the Petitioner had lost the money he paid for as an advance court fee when filing the lawsuit.

Thus, if the Petitioner exercises his right to file a dispute over termination of employment to the Industrial Relations Court and pays the court fee, then the lawsuit is granted, the Petitioner, who is in the position of the Claimant, will lose the court fee that has been paid at the time the lawsuit is registered because the obligations that must be carried out as stipulated in the Industrial Relations Court decision do not mention the party who receives the payment of the court fee.

Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 82 of the PPHI Law unconstitutional and not legally binding and the phrase “the decision of the Industrial Relations Court” in Article 97 of the PPHI Law unconstitutional if not interpreted as “the decision of the Industrial Relations Court, aside from inflicting punishment to the obligation of paying the court fee, shall determine the other party who receive the payment of the court fee to compensate for the advance court fee.” 

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Tiara Agustina
Translator  : Nyi Mas Laras Nur Inten Kemalasari/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.

---