Interim Report - Report No 297, March 1995

Case No 1773 (Indonesia) - Complaint date: 20-APR-94 - Closed

Display in: French - Spanish

Go to:

INTRODUCTION
A. The complainants' allegations
B. The Government's reply
C. The Committee's conclusions
The Committee's recommendations
Annex 1

484. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) filed a complaint of violations of freedom of association against the Government of Indonesia in a communication dated 20 April 1994. It provided further information in communications dated 10 May, 6 June, 9 and 18 August and 8 November 1994. The World Confederation of Labour (WCL) presented its complaint in a communication dated 26 August 1994. It provided further information in a letter of 24 November 1994.
485. The International Federation of Building and Woodworkers expressed its support to the ICFTU's complaint in a communication dated 15 December 1994.
486. The Government transmitted its observations and comments in communications dated 22 and 23 September, 26 October 1994 and 18 January 1995.
487. Indonesia has ratified the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98); it has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

A. The complainants' allegations

488. The complainants raise specific violations of trade union rights in Indonesia including the denial of the workers' right to establish organizations of their own choosing, the persistent interference by government authorities, the military and employers in trade union activities, and the ongoing restrictions in collective bargaining and strike action. The complainants also state very serious allegations concerning the arrest and harassment of trade union leaders as well as the disappearance and assassination of workers and unionists.
489. The ICFTU recalls that it had filed a previous complaint in 1987 against the Government of Indonesia that had been examined by the Committee at its May 1989 Session, raising specific criticisms of the industrial relations legislation in Indonesia (see 265th Report, Case No. 1431, paras. 104-137).
490. Despite the Committee's recommendations and the comments of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations that has highlighted for a number of years various deficiencies in Indonesian legislation, in violation of the principles of freedom of association, the ICFTU alleges that hardly any measure has been taken so far by the Government.
491. The complainants however add that additional elements and developments have occurred in Indonesia concerning systematic denial of the right of workers to set up unions of their own choosing, the interference of authorities into unions' affairs and labour relations in general and more preoccupying, the assassination, disappearance and arrest of workers and trade union leaders.
492. As regards the denial of the right of workers to set up unions of their own choosing, the ICFTU alleges that the SPSI (SPSI stands for Serikat Pekerja Seluruh Indonesia, or All Indonesia Workers' Union) is still the only registered national trade union centre in the country which claims to negotiate with employers on behalf of workers. The Government is also on record for explicitly wishing only the SPSI and the Indonesian Teachers' Association to function as officially recognized trade unions whereas a number of other organizations operate as quasi-unions.
493. The ICFTU indicates that a trade union is required to register in order to have the competence to bargain collectively. Ministry of Manpower Regulation No. 3/1993 on labour union registration (February 1993) provides that, to be registered, a trade union must have representation in five provinces with at least 100 units at plant level; alternatively, it must have 10,000 members throughout Indonesia. The organization has also to obtain a recommendation from an officially registered union, i.e. the SPSI. While these requirements are lower than those contained in the previous regulation (PER-05-MEN/87), the ICFTU considers that they remain so stringent as to constitute a major obstacle to collective bargaining since very few, if any, trade unions can obtain their registration in these circumstances. According to the ICFTU, this amounts to maintaining the monopoly given by the Government to the SPSI.
494. The complainants refer to the case of the Indonesian Prosperity Trade Union (SBSI) as an undisputed example of the authorities' refusal to recognize other trade unions than the SPSI.
495. According to the complainants, the SBSI was established during a meeting held on 24-26 April 1992 where 104 participants of whom 88 were factory workers attended. The new union's programme of action was then adopted and the members of its central management board (Dwean Pengurus Pusat) were elected.
496. The SBSI, led by its Chairman Mr. Muchtar Pakpahan, was open about its intention of trying to organize as many workers as possible so that it could formally register as a trade union. On 28 October 1992, the SBSI submitted an application for registration to the Ministry of Home Affairs. On that same day, the police, after having disturbed a meeting of the SBSI central management board and a local body of the SBSI in Tangerang, arrested and detained for a day Mr. Muchtar Pakpahan and eight other SBSI leaders.
497. The complainants consider that the above-mentioned elements represent circumstantial evidence that is indicative of the Government's hostility towards the establishment of the SBSI as an official trade union and of its intention to dissolve the SBSI by all possible means. Furthermore the complainants indicate that the SBSI is still awaiting its official recognition even if it appears that it fulfils all the legal requirements.
498. In its communication of 9 August 1994, the ICFTU points out that, since it has lodged its complaint in April 1994, the situation has worsened. All further efforts by independent workers' organizations to challenge governmental authorities or assert independence from the country's only officially recognized labour group have led to intimidation and harassment from the army and the police.
499. Also, the ICFTU states that local authorities have put in place further measures aimed at controlling workers closely and preventing them from establishing organizations of their own choosing. The ICFTU learnt that military security officials vetted workers' applications for identification documents; cars and pick-ups transporting workers to or from work were followed by military vehicles further hampering union activities that might be held outside work premises or working hours; and workers visiting detained colleagues in jail were interrogated by the military and pressured to resign from their jobs.
500. According to ICFTU sources, military interference in labour relations such as involvement in collective bargaining, supervision of industrial disputes, harassment and intimidation of striking workers continue unabated. To support its allegations, the ICFTU provides information on cases of military personnel present during negotiations of collective agreements, military supervision of strikes as well as examples of harassment and intimidation by employers and public authorities (see Annex 1). In the vast majority of cases, the impetus behind the industrial actions was the workers' protest against the employers' refusal to implement the minimum wage set by the Government.
501. With regard to the interference of authorities into the SBSI's internal affairs, the ICFTU states that there is ample evidence of this interference at local and regional levels. In fact the ICFTU is deeply concerned by the continuous harassment and intimidation the SBSI is facing from the authorities, the employers and the military. It appears that on various occasions manpower ministry representatives have intervened directly at workplaces and have attempted to persuade workers and especially their leaders to resign from the SBSI and sometimes from the enterprise altogether. For instance:
- - Southern Cross Textile Company (Jakarta) - a memo dated 23 November 1992 stated that action will be taken against any worker in the company found to be a member of the SBSI or openly or covertly organizing for the SBSI;
- - PT Mega Warna (Tangerang) - in June 1994, the SBSI plant-level leaders Messrs. Icang and Suryadi were taken into custody by the local military unit - Kodim - accused of belonging to a communist organization and interrogated with the use of electric devices;
- - dismissed on account of their membership of the SBSI were Messrs. Mulyadi, Vice-Chairman of the Solo branch employed by PT Golden Overseas Textile and F.X. Setiawan employed by YBKS, a non-governmental organization close to the SPSI.
502. The ICFTU indicates in its communication of 20 April 1994 that more than 2,000 workers have reportedly been dismissed for membership to the SBSI in Tangerang, East Jakarta, North Jakarta Bogor (West Java), Medan (North Sumatra) and Lampung (South Sumatra). In its communication of 10 May 1994, it alleges that on 25 April 1994 the Government announced that the SBSI had been banned and that by "the issuance of the ban, the SBSI was prohibited from carrying out any kind of activity".
503. As regards the SBSI general strike of 11 February 1994, the ICFTU recalls that the national SBSI leadership decided to call a nationwide general strike for 11 February 1994 in order to press for respect of trade union rights and improved living and working conditions. Specifically, the SBSI's action was designed to obtain from the Government full respect of freedom of association principles, including the removal of manpower ministry regulation No. PER.01/MEN/1994 (enforcing the SPSI's monopoly on trade union representation), the establishing of an adequate minimum wage, the full recognition of the SBSI and, finally, given the deadline of 1 April 1994 to meet these demands.
504. On 9 and 10 February 1994, the authorities raided a number of the SBSI meetings held in preparation of the strike. More than 17 SBSI leaders and activists, including Mr. Muchtar Pakpahan, were arrested and detained in three cities. In the following days, the ICFTU was informed that practically all SBSI detainees, including SBSI General Chairman, Mr. Pukpahan, had been released, two cases remaining unconfirmed. The SBSI Chairman and two senior officials, Messrs. Sunarty (SBSI central management board member) and Trisjanto (a regional SBSI board member) were charged with alleged violations of Indonesia's Penal Code, section 155, prohibiting dissemination of materials expressing feeling of hostility, hatred or contempt towards the Government and carrying a penalty of up to four and a half years in jail. The ICFTU is concerned by the fact that, under Indonesian law, all persons released are still likely to be re-arrested at any time and brought to the court to respond to the initial charges until the latter have been formally dropped.
505. It appears that even though the February industrial actions were held by the workers without recourse to any violence, the authorities felt compelled to arrest various demonstrators, including trade union leaders. The ICFTU also states that numerous government and military officials visited factories in Jakarta and Java immediately before the strike appealing to workers to ignore the SBSI call for a work stoppage.
506. The complainants recall that since early March 1994, industries in the city of Medan and surrounding regions have been paralysed by strikes involving tens of thousands of workers. On some days as many as 30,000 workers were reportedly on strike in different factories. In Medan, on 14 April 1994, the complainants allege that the workers gathered peacefully in the city's main square. Their demands were for a more equitable minimum wage, freedom of association and protestation against the death on 12 March 1994 of Mr. Rusli, a SBSI member, who died in unexplained circumstances while he was leading a strike. The complainants report that the ranks of striking workers quickly swelled to over 25,000. On Friday, 15 April 1994, the regional military commander Major-General R. Pranowo announced a ban on all demonstrations. The next day President Suharto ordered "firm action" against the protesters. Despite all the warnings, protests continued on 18 and 19 April 1994. Reportedly, the rallies were entirely peaceful until the security forces attacked and arrested protesters. The strike then degenerated into riots in which a factory owner died and about 150 stores were destroyed, banks and businesses ransacked.
507. The complainants state that the SBSI strongly denies involvement in the riots. When questioned on 16 April 1994 by the police in Semarang, Mr. Pakpahan acknowledged that the mass protests launched on 14 April were an initiative of the SBSI branch in Medan jointly with a number of non-governmental organizations. He has thus admitted that his organization had been behind the initial labour protests and had been rallying workers in support of their demands, but denied instigating the ensuing violence. He said that the workers' rallies in Medan and the surrounding areas had been used by others, including local thugs, to manipulate the strike and create riots with racial overtones.
508. The ICFTU deplores this tragic course of events but wishes to restate its position that the Government must not use its duty to bring to justice those responsible for violence as a pretext to undercut the workers' legitimate exercise of freedom of association, assembly and expression. It appears that the Government singled out the SBSI as the main perpetrator of the riots and accused this organization of having masterminded the demonstrations. Mr. Suwarto, Director-General for industrial relations and labour standards, was reported to have said that the Medan rallies were illegal and the organizers should be prosecuted. In turn, the army claimed the SBSI was responsible for fomenting race riots and vandalism.
509. The ICFTU indicates in its communication dated 10 May 1994 that more than 100 people have been arrested in connection with these events. The ICFTU adds that 19 SBSI local leaders and activists have been arrested in Medan and charged with conspiracy against the Government. With its communication of 6 June 1994, the ICFTU provides a list of workers and labour activists that were still detained in Medan in May 1994 (see Annex 2). Eight persons on the list were leaders of the SBSI Medan branch, i.e. Messrs. Amosi Telaumbanua, Chairman, SBSI-Medan, Hayati, Treasurer, SBSI-Medan, Riswan Lubis, Secretary, SBSI-Medan, Soniman Lafao, Vice-Chairman, SBSI-Medan, as well as Ardin Zega (from PT Gunung Gahapi Sakti), Ridwan (from PT Unibis) and Sudiaman Zega (from PT Larissa). In their communications of 9 and 26 August 1994, the ICFTU and the WCL express their great concern at the continuous detention of all the SBSI Medan branch leaders including Messrs. Riswan Lubis, Hayati, Amosi Telaumbanua, Soniman Lafau and Fatiwanolo Zega. They were all at that time on trial or awaiting to be tried.
510. The ICFTU's concern, as stated in its communication of 9 August 1994, also includes Messrs. Jannes Hutahaen and Parlin Manihuruk from PRK (People's Creative Foundation) and KPS (Polita Welfare Foundation), two non-governmental organizations who were involved in organizing the demonstrations in April 1994.
511. Finally, the ICFTU and the WCL report that on 13 August, at 8 a.m., Medan's city police arrested Mr. Muchtar Pakpahan at his residence in East Jakarta. Reportedly the arrest warrant cited two charges: one of publicly engaging in criminal acts which were likely to lure other people into criminality; and another for holding a street rally without a police permit. On 7 November 1994, Mr. Muchtar Pakpahan was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for his alleged involvement in the April 1994 strikes in Medan. The complainants recall that Medan courts had already sentenced three local SBSI leaders, Mr. Amosi Telaumbanua to 15 months, Mr. Hayati to seven months and Mr. Riswan Lubis to eight months in jail.
512. The WCL alleges that these detentions and convictions were totally arbitrary, the ICFTU adding that the rights of defence were blatantly disregarded during these trials. The prosecution at Mr. Pakpahan's trial seemed to prove little beyond the fact that he was engaged in legitimate trade union activities such as training, advice on collective bargaining and campaigning on trade union rights.
513. With regard to the strike at PT Sumatran Tobacco Trading Company (STTC NV), Pematang Siantar, the ICFTU indicates that, in early June 1994, severe repression was used to quell an industrial dispute related to non-payment of wages in this cigarette factory. The conflict spread quickly to three other factories owned by the same company. Unable to reach an agreement, the workforce staged a sit-in outside the premises on 3 June 1994. Without warning, it appears that security guards attacked the workers with sticks and knives. A worker, Mr. Abdul Siagian, was arrested. The following day, on 4 June, the workers went on strike and, on 6 June, 6,000 workers marched to the local office of the department of labour, the local police station and the military command, demanding the release of Mr. Abdul Siagian. The ICFTU alleges that on 8 June the workers went back to work but another worker, Mr. Effendi Simbolon, was taken away. In response to this arrest, some 3,000 workers occupied the factory for 30 hours while troops blockaded the factory making it impossible for workers to leave. On 9 June, anti-terrorist troops, backed by other security units, attacked the workers causing many injuries. The level of violence was unprecedented. In its communication of 9 August 1994, the ICFTU states that 13 workers and a woman activist of a labour non-governmental organization were detained in connection with these events (see Annex 3). In its communication of 8 November 1994, the ICFTU indicates that on 7 October 1994, 11 workers were sentenced to jail imprisonment, charged with hostage-taking (see Annex 3). Three others, Abdul Ikhwan Siagan, Efendi Simbolon and Ronsen Purba, were also being tried in November 1994 in connection with these events.
514. Finally, the ICFTU reports three cases of death. The ICFTU states that they could be presumed to be connected to violent acts of repression of trade union rights. In March 1994, Mr. Rusli, an SBSI member, died while he was leading a strike. It appears that he fell or jumped into the river after being severely beaten by the police. The second example reported by the ICFTU is the case of Mrs. Marsinah, a young female labour activist at the PT Catru Putra Surya (CPS) watch factory in Prong, Sidoarjo (East Java) who was murdered in May 1993 after she was involved in a strike. She was known to have protested the dismissal of 13 of her colleagues at CPS who took industrial action in support of a wage demand. Finally, the ICFTU also received confirmation of reports of the murder of another female activist, Mrs. Titi Sugiarti, whose body was found on 30 April 1994 in a waste pond near her factory, PT Kahatex in Bandung, where she had been employed since 1989. Two weeks before she died, Mrs. Sugiartu was known to be active in planning a strike for higher wages and social security benefits. An autopsy suggested that she had been tortured before being murdered. The ICFTU adds that, according to the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation, there have been in Indonesia several cases of labour activists disappearing under mysterious circumstances.
515. The complainants conclude by requesting the Committee to lodge a formal protest with the Indonesian Government at this excessive response of the security apparatus to the well-founded demands of the Indonesian workers mentioned in their communications, to call on the authorities to release Mr. Muchtar Pakpahan as well as the other SBSI leaders and workers, to cease harassment and repression of the SBSI activists and to lift the threat of banning this organization.

B. The Government's reply

516. In a communication dated 26 October 1994, the Government states that Ministerial Regulation No. 1 of 1994 guarantees to workers the right to organize trade unions freely at the local level without the necessity to affiliate to the SPSI. For instance, the Government indicates that around 120 local organizations have been established in Indonesia and that they are now in the process of negotiating collective labour agreements (CLA).
517. The Government states that the intervention of the military and the police forces as well as the arrest of certain trade union leaders, activists and workers were the result of legal prosecutions for violations of criminal laws. In other words, they were being sued for violating general criminal laws and not for having exercised trade union rights.
518. As regards the suppression surrounding the Medan strikes launched in April 1994, the Government states that it does not consider these cases as a labour dispute but clearly as a criminal offence, their crushing being of the security apparatus competence. The information conveyed by the complainant organizations is incomplete since it makes no reference to the striking workers' destructive actions, namely acts of violence leading to an employer's death and damages to the property. According to the Government, 10,000 workers of 93 companies were involved in the riot.
519. With regard to the strike at PT Sumatran Tobacco Trading Company (STTC NV) in Pematang Siantar, the Government considers that this event is closer to a hostage-taking than to a labour dispute and goes on to explain in detail the relevant circumstances. As a result of this event, the Government corroborates that 11 workers were sentenced to one-year imprisonment, on charges of hostage-taking. Messrs. Abdul Ihwan Siagian and Effendi Simbolon were also tried and sentenced to one year in jail for having beaten security guards and destroyed property.
520. As for the specific case of the SBSI plant-level leaders, Messrs. Icang and Suryadi, of PT Mega Warna (Tangerang), the Government indicates that they were arrested because they had perpetrated a criminal offence, namely to have gathered people without a permit delivered by the competent authority.
521. With regard to the case of the SBSI Chairman, Mr. Muchtar Pakpahan, the Government indicates in its communication of 22 September 1994 that Mr. Pakpahan's arrest was based on alleged violations of Indonesian laws and not on his status as trade union leader. The Government recalls, in its communication of 18 January 1995, that Mr. Pakpahan was sentenced to three years' imprisonment as well as Messrs. Amosi Telambanua, Riswan Lubis and Hayati, all found guilty of direct and indirect actions leading to the Medan riots. The Government insists that it had never interfered in the process of justice and claims that all the accused were granted a prompt and fair trial.
522. Turning to the allegations concerning the death of the SBSI member Mr. Rusli, the young labour activists Mrs. Marsinah and Mrs. Titi Sugiarti, the Government provides the following explanations:
- - Mr. Rusli's death had been investigated by the police force which concluded that it was not related to any of its actions;
- - in the case of Mrs. Marsinah, the Government restates that it had been brought before an independent and neutral body. The decision reached was based on the law in force in the country, the Government not having interfered at any time in the due process of justice; and
- - according to the competent authority that has led the investigation concerning Mrs. Titi Sugiarti's death, it appears that she died of suffocation. Her family was allocated monetary compensation pursuant to Indonesian legislation (Rp. 1,231,450).

C. The Committee's conclusions

523. Before examining the matters at issue, the Committee expresses its deepest concern over the extreme seriousness of the allegations which refer to the murder, disappearance, arrest and detention of trade union leaders and workers, as well as persistent and continuous violations of trade union rights in Indonesia.
524. The Committee deplores that it appears that virtually no remedial action was taken following the examination, in May 1989, of the case that was filed by the ICFTU against the Government of Indonesia (see 265th Report, Case No. 1431, paras. 104-137). This complaint raised issues concerning restrictions on trade union rights based on specific criticisms of the industrial relations legislation, namely, restrictions on the right to organize trade unions, including a ban on the right to organize for all public servants; insufficient protection against anti-union discrimination and interference contrary to Articles 1 and 2 of Convention No. 98; restrictions on collective bargaining contrary to Article 4 of Convention No. 98; and restrictions on the exercise of the right to strike.
525. In this context, the Committee would like to recall the report of the direct contacts mission which took place in Indonesia in November 1993 which made, inter alia, the following recommendations:
- Steps should be taken, in law and in fact, to guarantee workers effective protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, and acts of interference by employers, in particular by:
  - - consolidating and simplifying the existing provisions on the subject;
  - - adopting provisions to remedy evidentiary difficulty;
  - - strengthening the penalties provided for violations of anti-union discrimination and interference provisions;
  - - streamlining and strengthening the enforcement provisions; ...
- (Report of the Committee of Experts, ILC, 81st Session, 1994, pp. 268-269.)
526. The Committee also refers to the extensive discussion on this subject in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in 1994 (ILC, 81st Session, Provisional Record No. 25, pp. 98-100).
527. The Committee is all the more concerned since it had examined at its November 1994 Session a complaint brought against the Government where a number of issues were similar, indeed identical, to allegations raised in the present case (see 295th Report, Case No. 1756, paras. 398-429).
528. With regard to the new evidence provided by the complainant organizations, the Committee deeply deplores and re-emphasizes the seriousness of the allegations which lead it to believe that the general situation of workers in Indonesia has not evolved but is still characterized by serious and worsening infringements of basic human and trade union rights and violations of freedom of association principles in law and in practice.
529. Turning to the allegations of denial of the right of workers to set up unions of their own choosing, and namely the legislative impediments that prevent workers from establishing organizations of their own choosing, the Committee takes note of the contradictory evidence provided by the complainant organizations and the Government. On the one hand, the ICFTU alleges that a trade union needs to be registered to be officially recognized, but the requirements for registration are so rigorous that they constitute obstacles to freedom of association and collective bargaining. On the other hand, the Government states that workers have the right to organize and establish organizations which will be able to bargain and negotiate collective labour agreements. The Committee, with the Committee of Experts, considers that the Indonesian trade union registration system at the national level comprises requirements that are so stringent as to constitute a major limitation to collective bargaining since very few trade unions can see their establishment legally recognized (for instance, the regulation provides that a labour union can be registered if it has at least 100 units (work centres) at plant level, 25 organizations at the district level and five organizations at the provincial level, and, alternatively, at least 10,000 members throughout Indonesia). Furthermore, the Committee is of the opinion that these legal impediments negate the right of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing and are, therefore, in clear violation of one of the most basic principles of freedom of association. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the precise practical effect of Ministerial Regulation No. 1 of 1994 and, in particular, to indicate if organizations affiliated to SBSI can be established in this framework and, if so, to indicate whether such organizations actually exist. It also urges the Government to take all the necessary measures in law and in practice to ensure that the right of workers to organize is fully recognized and to keep it informed in this respect.
530. As regards the specific case of the SBSI's registration, the Committee notes that the SBSI has been awaiting its registration for more than two years. Even though the legal requirements are very stringent, it appears from the evidence adduced that the SBSI met them all, except for the recommendation from the SPSI. In this respect, the Committee recalls that any government position which favours one organization, in this case the SPSI, constitutes an act of anti-union discrimination and is contrary to the principle of freedom of association. The Committee considers that the obligation for trade unions like the SBSI to obtain the consent of the SPSI in order to be registered must be immediately removed and urges the Government to review all other required measures in this regard with a view to their elimination.
531. With regard to the allegations referring to the continuous interference of public authorities in labour relations and the measures put in place supposedly aiming at controlling workers and preventing them from establishing organizations of their own choosing, the Committee deeply regrets that the Government has not provided any comments on the alleged cases of military personnel present during negotiations, military supervision of strikes, as well as the examples of harassment and intimidation by employers and public authorities reported by the ICFTU (Annex 1). The Committee wishes to recall that the right of workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing is an intrinsic part of the freedom of association principles and that measures taken against workers because they attempt to constitute or to reconstitute organizations of workers outside the official trade union organization are incompatible with the principles of freedom of association (Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 3rd edition, 1987, paras. 233, 654). The Committee requests the Government to communicate without delay its observations concerning the alleged acts of interference mentioned above.
532. As regards the dismissal on account of SBSI membership of Messrs. Mulyadi and F.X. Setiawan as well as the threat of action against any worker of the Southern Cross Textile Company (Jakarta) found to be a member of the SBSI, the Committee deeply regrets that the Government has not replied to these allegations. The Committee recalls that Convention No. 98 ratified by Indonesia provides that particular protection must be given to workers against dismissal or other prejudices by reason of union membership. The Committee therefore insists that the Government provide information on: (i) the allegation of acts of anti-union discrimination against workers of the Southern Cross Textile Company found to be members of the SBSI; and (ii) the dismissals of Messrs. Mulyadi and F.X. Setiawan. It urges the Government, if they were found to have been dismissed because of their trade union activities, to take all the necessary measures to enable them to secure reinstatement in their posts.
533. As regards the reported repression surrounding the SBSI strikes of February, April (Medan) and June 1994 (PT Sumatran Tobacco Trading Company), the Committee deeply regrets that the Government has not provided any information concerning the February events and takes note of the Government's and the complainant organizations' comments on the two other strikes, showing how much their understanding of these demonstrations are incompatible. For the complainant organizations, the strikes represented the ultimate industrial actions taken in the context of industries totally paralysed by labour disputes involving tens of thousands of workers. The workers' demands were generally for a more equitable minimum wage and freedom of association. The complainants state that the workers gathered peacefully and it is only after the security forces attacked and arrested protesters that the rallies degenerated into violent demonstrations. While noting the Government's general comment that the police and the armed forces intervene in the event of illegal gatherings, according to the evidence available, the Committee is of the opinion that the non-registration of the SBSI as a recognized trade union and the continuous measures taken against it have played a significant role in the suppression of the strikes by public authorities. Pursuant to Indonesian law and the Government's statements, the Committee understands that any public assembly organized by the unregistered SBSI will be considered illegal and will be repressed. In this respect, the Committee insists on the principles that the right to strike and to organize union meetings are essential means through which workers and their organizations may promote and defend their economic and social interests and that in cases of strikes, the authorities should have resort to the use of force only in serious situations where law and order are seriously threatened. Even though the Committee deplores that the demonstrations have led to one employer's death and property damages, it feels bound to emphasize that "where trade unions feel that they do not enjoy the basic freedoms indispensable for carrying out their purposes, they should be entitled to demand the recognition and exercise of these freedoms and their claims should be considered to form part of legitimate trade union activity and not subject to criminal prosecution" (Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Freedom of Association concerning Poland, Official Bulletin, Special Supplement, Vol. LXVII, 1984, Series B, para. 490).
534. Turning to the serious allegations concerning the arrest and detention of workers and SBSI leaders, the Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government concerning Messrs. Icang and Suryandi who were arrested and convicted of having illegally gathered people without the appropriate permit. The Committee wishes to draw to the Government's attention that even though workers and their organizations, like other persons or organized collectivities, shall respect the law of the land, the latter shall not impair the freedom of association principles and strongly insists that the arrest and detention of trade union leaders and workers in connection with activities related to the protection of their interests endanger the free exercise of trade union rights. In this respect, taking the view that individuals have the right to be presumed innocent until found guilty, the Committee considers that the Government has not fulfilled its obligation to show that the measures it had taken were in no way occasioned by the trade union activities of the individuals concerned (see Digest, op. cit., para. 122) and urges the Government to provide further information on: (i) the outcome of Messrs. Icang's and Suryandi's trials; (ii) all the workers and trade union leaders arrested, detained or convicted in connection with the Medan events, and namely on the workers and SBSI leaders mentioned in Annex 2; (iii) Messrs. Jannes Hutahaen and Parlin Manihuruk from PRK (People's Creative Foundation) and KPS (Polita Welfare Foundation), who were involved in the demonstrations of April 1994; and (iv) Messrs. Sardin Saragih, Kholil Siregar, Sari Dasmeria Purba and Ronsen Purba, all alleged to have been arrested in connection with the Pematang Sinatar events.
535. Referring specifically to the trials and convictions of Messrs. Pakpahan, Amosi, Telaumbanua, Hayati, and Riswan Lubis as well as Messrs. Abdul Ikhwan Siagan, Effendi Simbolon and the 13 workers of PT Sumatran Tobacco Trading Company, the Committee has been informed that the sentences of at least two trade union leaders, Messrs. Pakpahan and Amosi, have been recently extended by courts of appeal. It expresses its deep concern and stresses the importance it attaches to the principle that a free trade union movement can only develop under a regime which guarantees fundamental rights (see Digest, op. cit., para. 73). Furthermore, as regards the allegations to the effect that the rights of defence were blatantly disregarded during these trials, the Committee regrets that the Government has not provided specific information on this important issue and insists that it shall be a policy of every government to ensure observance of human rights and especially of the right of all detained or accused persons to receive a fair trial at the earliest possible moment (see Digest, op. cit., para. 108). In the light of the evidence before it, the Committee can only conclude that Messrs. Pakpahan, Amosi, Telaumbanua, Hayati and Riswan Lubis have been imprisoned on account of their trade union activities and urges the Government to take the necessary measures for their release without delay.
536. Finally, referring to the assassination, disappearance and arrest of workers and trade union leaders, the Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government concerning Mr. Rusli's, Mrs. Marsinah's and Titi Sugiarti's deaths to the effect that the case of Mrs. Marsinah was examined by an impartial tribunal and that investigations were led by the police in order to clarify the circumstances of Mr. Rusli's and Mrs. Titi Sugiarti's deaths. The Committee deplores and emphasizes the seriousness of the allegations referring to the disappearance of a number of workers and trade union leaders in Indonesia and wishes to recall that in cases of loss of human life, the setting up of an independent judicial inquiry by the Government concerned is a particularly appropriate method of fully ascertaining the facts, determining responsibilities and punishing those responsible (see Digest, op. cit., para. 78). Therefore, the Committee requests the Government to initiate independent inquiries regarding the circumstances surrounding Mr. Rusli's and Mrs. Titi Sugiarti's deaths and to keep it informed of the results thereof as well as the judgement handed down in the case brought concerning the murder of Mrs. Marsinah.

The Committee's recommendations

537. In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
- (a) The Committee considers that the Indonesian trade union registration system at the national level comprises requirements that are so stringent as to constitute a major impediment to collective bargaining and, indeed, negates the right of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the precise practical effect of Ministerial Regulation No. 1 of 1994 and, in particular, to indicate if organizations affiliated to SBSI can be established and, if so, to indicate whether such organizations actually exist. The Committee urges the Government once again to take all the necessary measures, in law and in practice, to ensure that the rights of workers to organize are fully recognized and to keep it informed in this respect.
- (b) The Committee notes that the SBSI has been awaiting its registration for more than two years even though it appears from the evidence adduced that it meets all the legal requirements, except for the recommendation of the SPSI. The Committee considers that the obligation for trade unions like the SBSI to obtain the consent of the SPSI should be immediately removed and urges the Government to review all other required measures in this regard with a view to their elimination.
- (c) The Committee deeply regrets that the Government has not provided any comments on the reported cases of military personnel present during negotiations and military supervision of strikes as well as on the examples of harassment and intimidation by employers and public authorities reported by the ICFTU (Annex 1) and requests the Government to communicate without delay its observations concerning the alleged acts of interference mentioned above.
- (d) As regards the dismissal on account of SBSI membership of Messrs. Mulyadi and F.X. Setiawan as well as the threat of action against any worker of the Southern Cross Textile Company (Jakarta) found to be a member of the SBSI, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on: (i) the allegation of acts of anti-union discrimination against workers of the Southern Cross Textile Company found to be members of the SBSI; and (ii) the dismissals of Messrs. Mulyadi and F.X. Setiawan. The Committee urges the Government if they were found to have been dismissed because of their trade union activities, to take all the necessary measures to enable them to secure reinstatement in their posts.
- (e) As regards the arrest and detention of workers and SBSI leaders, the Committee considers that the Government has not fulfilled its obligation to show that the measures it had taken were in no way occasioned by the trade union activities of the individuals concerned. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to provide further information on: (i) the outcome of Messrs. Icang's and Suryandi's trials; (ii) all the workers and trade union leaders arrested, detained or convicted in connection with the Medan events, and namely on the workers and SBSI leaders mentioned in Annex 2; (iii) Messrs. Jannes Hutahaen and Parlin Manihuruk from PRK (People's Creative Foundation) and KPS (Polita Welfare Foundation); and (iv) Messrs. Sardin Saragih, Kholil Siregar, Sari Dasmeria Purba and Ronsen Purba, all alleged to have been arrested in connection with the Pematang Sinatar events.
- (f) As regards the allegations to the effect that the rights of defence were blatantly disregarded during SBSI leaders' trials, the Committee regrets that the Government has not provided specific information on this issue. In the light of the evidence provided, the Committee cannot but conclude that Messrs. Pakpahan, Amosi, Telaumbanua, Hayati and Riswan Lubis were imprisoned on account of their trade union activities and urges the Government to take all necessary measures for their release without delay.
- (g) The Committee deplores and emphasizes the seriousness of the allegations referring to the disappearance of a number of workers and trade union leaders in Indonesia. The Committee requests the Government to initiate independent inquiries regarding the circumstances surrounding Mr. Rusli's and Mrs. Titi Sugiarti's deaths and to keep it informed of the results thereof as well as the judgement handed down in the case brought concerning the murder of Mrs. Marsinah.

Annex 1

Alleged public authorities' interference
1. PT Pratama Abadi Industry, Pakulonan Village, Serpong, Tangerang - alleged
case of harassment (4 January 1994).
2. PT Yahinlon Prima, Majalaya, Bandung - alleged case of harassment (5
January 1994).
3. PT Indah Jaya, Gandasari Village, Tangerang - alleged case of interference
(6 January 1994).
4. PT Manawi Jaya Kenoana, Karawaoi, Tangerang - alleged case of interference
(11 January 1994).
5. PT Indoporlen Seti Makar, Tambun, Bekasi - alleged case of interference
during negotiations (11 January 1994).
6. PT Kartika Sasana Boga, Cibitung, Bekasi - alleged case of interference
during negotiations (11 January 1994).
7. PT Pindo Delli, Kalurahan Adirasa, Karawang - alleged case of interference
during negotiations (17 January 1994).
8. PT Polyester, Gintungkerta Village, Klari, Karawang - alleged case of
interference during negotiations (17 January 1994).
9. PT Naga, Pasar Kamis, Tangerang - alleged case of interference during
negotiations (17 January 1994).
10. PT Edico Utama, Pulogadung, East Jakarta - alleged case of interference
during negotiations (19 January 1994).
11. PT Ohekan Kencana, Pasir Jaya, Jatiuwung, Tangerang - alleged case of
interference during negotiations and strike (19 January 1994).
12. PT Jamina, Sukamulya Village, Cikupa Tangerang - alleged case of
interference during negotiations (21 January 1994).
13. PT Chinin Indonesia, Pulo Buaran, Pulogadung, East Java - alleged case of
interference during negotiations (21 January 1994).
14. Marapi Rimba Raya, Jetis, Mojokerto - alleged case of interference during
negotiations and strike (21 January 1994).
15. PT Nobel Star Electronic, Batu Ceper, Tangerang - strike - alleged case of
harassment (24 January 1994).
16. Hotel Bandung Parmai, Jl. A. Yani, Bandung - alleged case of harassment
and interference during strike (25 January 1994).
17. PT Oriental Jaya Abadi, Dadu Village, Curug, Tangerang - alleged case of
interference during strike (25 January 1994).
18. PT Ganda Wangsa Utama, Sidoarjo - alleged case of interference (25 January
1994).
Annex 2
Workers and labour activists detained in Medan as of early May 1994 according
to the ICFTU
_________________________________________________________________
Name, age Place of detention
(place of employment) (date of detention)
_________________________________________________________________
Amosi Telaumbanua
(Chairman, SBSI-Medan) Poltabes Medan (29.4.94)
Fatiwanolo Zega
(Deputy Secretary, SBSI-Medan) Poltabes Medan (29.4.94)
Hayati, 21 (Treasurer, SBSI-Medan) Poltabes Medan (16.4.94)
Riswan Lubis (Secretary, SBSI-Medan) Poltabes Medan (15.4.94)
Soniman Lafao
(Vice-Chairman, SBSI-Medan) Poltabes Medan (29.4.94)
Andar Pasaribu, 26
(PT Cipta Rimba Jaya) Poltabes Medan
Ardin Zega, 25
(PT Gunung Gahapi Sakti) Poltabes Medan (20.4.94)
Aries Hia, 27 (PT Juta Jelita) Poltabes Medan
Arifin, 18 (PT Ganda Seribu) Poltabes Medan (17.4.94)
Arozidu Zega (PT Larissa) Poltabes Medan (20.4.94)
Budiman Sahri (PT Perindoni) Poltabes Medan
Effendi Tarigan (PT Growth Sumatra) Poltabes Medan
Hanafi, 21 (PT Ganda Seribu) Poltabes Medan (17.4.94)
Irawadi, 24 (PT Growth Asia) Poltabes Medan
Jafar Siddik, 26 (PT Irom) Poltabes Medan
Jamiang, 36 (PT Golgon) Poltabes Medan (16.4.94)
Juman, 17 (PT Deni Works or PT IKD) Poltabes Medan
Marzuki Siregar, 29
(PT Bintang Cemara) Poltabes Medan
Mohammad Ali, 19 (PT Perindoni) Poltabes Medan
Mulyadi, 24 (PT Ganda Seribu) Poltabes Medan (18.4.94)
Nobel Samosir, 22 (PD Romas) Poltabes Medan
Nurlela Manalu, 24 (PT Unibis) Poltabes Medan
Poniman, 20 (PT Musi Mas) Poltabes Medan
Rianto, 25 (PT Unibis) Poltabes Medan
Ridwan, 22 (PT Unibis) Poltabes Medan
Ridwan, 42 (PT Golgon) Poltabes Medan (16.4.94)
Robert Sitompul, 21 (PT Perindoni) Poltabes Medan
Sudiaman Zega (PT Larissa) Poltabes Medan (20.4.94)
Sugiono, 24 (PT Mosply) Poltabes Medan (16.4.94)
Suyatno, 23 (Construction worker) Poltabes Medan
Syahril, 28 (Bus conductor) Poltabes Medan
Syamsudin Lubis, 22 (PT Golgon) Poltabes Medan (16.4.94)
Syamsul Bahri, 18 (Auto shop, Glugur) Poltabes Medan
Tehnik Menalu, 21 (unemployed) Poltabes Medan
Usahanta Ginting, 22 (PT Ganda Seribu) Poltabes Medan
Zulkifli Sipahutar, 30
(PT Growth Asia) Poltabes Medan (16.4.94)
_________________________________________________________________
Annex 3
Detained individuals according to the ICFTU in connection with the Pematang
Siantar events (June 1994)
1. Abdul Ikhwan Siagian, STTC employee
2. Effendi Simbolon, STTC employee
3. Helen Sigalingging, STTC employee
4. Tobasan Siregar, STTC employee
5. Sardin Saragih, STTC employee
6. Rosmawati Sipayung, STTC employee
7. Kolil Siregar, STTC employee
8. Roince Sagala, SSU employee and SBSI member
9. Togar Marbun, STTC employee and SBSI member
10. Khairiani Lubis, SSU employee and deputy secretary of the SBSI Pematang
Siantar branch
11. Roslince Nainggolan, SSU employee and SBSI member
12. Hotmauli Situmorang, SSU employee
13. Ronsen Purba, lawyer and vice-chair of the SBSI Pematang Siantar legal aid
group
14. Sari Dasmeria Purba, labour activist, non-governmental organization
Annex 4
Individuals tried and convicted according to the ICFTU in connection with the
Pematang Siantar events (June 1994)
1. Rosnauli Sipayung, 24, employed by STTC
2. Hotmauli Situmorang, 27, employed by SSU
3. Roince Sagala, 24, employed by SSU
4. Roslince Nainggolan, 28, employed by SSU
5. Khairani Lubis, 24, employed by SSU
6. Helen Tio Sigalingging, 22, employed by SSU
7. Tobasan Siregar, 22, employed by STTC
8. Teruna Wahyudi, 25, employed by STTC
9. Togar Janter Marbun, 23, employed by STTC
10. Kholil Siregar, 28, employed by STTC
11. Utusan Manao, 26, employed by STTC
12. Abdul Ikhwan Siagian
13. Effendi Simbolon
14. Ronsen Purba