Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Indonesia (Ratification: 1957)

The Committee takes note of the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 1 September 2017 and the Confederation of Indonesian Trade Unions (KSPI) and the Indonesia Trade Union Prosperity (KSBSI) dated 30 August 2017 and the Government’s replies thereon.

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and employer interference. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take steps to amend the legislation to ensure comprehensive protection against anti-union discrimination, providing for effective procedures that may impose sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against such acts. It further requested the Government to provide statistics on the number of complaints of anti-union discrimination and interference filed with: (a) the police; (b) the labour inspectorate; and (c) the courts, as well as the steps taken to investigate these complaints, the remedies and sanctions imposed, and the average duration of proceedings under each category. It also requested the Government to provide a copy of Decree No. 03 of 1984 of the Minister of Manpower.

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s report on a number of labour-related cases reported to the police, as well as on complaints submitted to the Ministry of Manpower on broad range of issues. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide statistics most specifically as regards complaints of anti-union discrimination and to provide information on any remedies or sanctions imposed and whether any of these complaints were brought to the courts.

Article 2. Adequate protection against acts of interference. The Committee’s previous comments concerned the need to amend section 122 of the Manpower Act so as to discontinue the presence of the employer during a voting procedure held in order to determine which trade union in an enterprise shall have the right to represent the workers in collective bargaining. Noting the Government’s indication that it will convey the steps taken in this regard when the Government next reviews the Manpower Act, the Committee requests it to provide information on any developments to ensure that workers may carry out their activities without undue interference from the employer.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take measures to amend sections 5, 14 and 24 of Act No. 2 of 2004 concerning industrial relations dispute settlement, which enables either of the parties to an industrial dispute to file a legal petition to the Industrial Relations Court for final settlement of the dispute if conciliation or mediation has failed. The Committee notes that the Government once again affirms that the Act has no relation with collective bargaining in the process of resolving industrial relations disputes but only bargaining for the drafting of a collective employment agreement. The Committee once again emphasizes that compulsory arbitration at the initiative of one party engaged in negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement does not promote voluntary collective bargaining. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to review sections 5, 14 and 24 of Act No. 2 of 2004 after consultations with the social partners concerned, so that the recourse to compulsory arbitration during collective bargaining can only be invoked in the case that both parties agree, or in the case of public servants engaged in the administration of the State (Article 6 of the Convention), essential services in the strict sense of the term and acute national crises. It further requests the Government once again to provide information on the number of cases referred to compulsory arbitration by only one party to the dispute and the circumstances involved in those cases.

Recognition of organizations for the purposes of collective bargaining. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 119(1) and (2) of the Manpower Act, in order to negotiate a collective agreement, a union must have membership equal to more than 50 per cent of the total workforce in the enterprise or receive more than 50 per cent support in a vote of all the workers in the enterprise and if it does not obtain this majority, may only request to engage in collective bargaining after a period of six months. The Committee had requested the Government to provide information on the manner in which collective bargaining could be conducted in the event that no union represented 50 per cent of the workers and notes the information provided in the Government’s report that in such cases the union may be part of a bargaining team that represents more than half of the workforce. The Committee requests the Government to provide statistics in its next report on the number of collective bargaining agreements concluded at enterprise level and the coverage of workers by such collective agreements.

Federations and confederations. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that there has been no report of federations or confederations of trade unions having signed collective agreements, and requested it to ensure that such information is publicly available and to continue to provide information concerning collective agreements signed by federations or confederations. The Committee had noted the Government’s indication that it welcomed the recommendation of the direct contacts mission, which visited the country in October 2016, for a pilot exercise promoting collective bargaining in Bekasi. The Committee notes the indication in the Government’s latest report that national tripartite consultations took place in this regard on 10 May 2017 near Bekasi and that the constituents had recommended capacity building for a better bipartite collaboration, collective bargaining, dispute settlement and improved capacity of trade unions and the employers’ organization to increase their membership. The Government adds that tripartite dialogue will take place in Bekasi as a follow-up to this activity to discuss priority activities. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the developments concerning this pilot exercise and its impact on collective bargaining at the sectoral and regional levels.

Export processing zones (EPZs). In its previous observations, the Committee had repeatedly requested the Government, pursuant to allegations of violent intimidation and assault of union organizers, and dismissals of union activists in EPZs, to provide information on the number of collective agreements in force in EPZs and the percentage of workers covered, as well as on the number of complaints of anti-union discrimination and employer interference in EPZs and the relevant investigation and remediation measures. The Committee notes the Government’s affirmation in its report that the labour law is applied throughout the zones and there is no different treatment of workers or unions in the zones. The Committee observes however that several specific cases were raised in the observations provided by the ITUC, the KSPI and the KSBSI and the Government in its reply has referred to a variety of efforts to address these concerns. The Committee invites the Government to examine these matters within the framework of the National Tripartite Council with a view to most effectively addressing the specific concerns and to enable consideration of whether broader steps should be taken to ensure that freedom of association is effectively protected in EPZs. It requests the Government to provide detailed information on of the results of the tripartite consideration of this matter.