Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 343, November 2006

Case No 2236 (Indonesia) - Complaint date: 25-NOV-02 - Closed

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 96. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns allegations of anti-union discrimination by the Bridgestone Tyre Indonesia Company against four union officers suspended without pay, at its March 2006 meeting. On that occasion, the Committee urged the Government to ensure that no decision could be rendered or enforced in respect of the dismissal proceedings against the four trade union officers before the question of anti-union discrimination was fully examined and elucidated. In particular, noting that the anti-union discrimination proceedings had been hampered by the absence of the former director-president of the company, it requested the Government to ensure that the proceedings for the examination of these allegations be completed without further delay and in a fully impartial manner, so that these trade unionists did not suffer any injustice by the fact that the former director-president had left the country. If the allegations of anti-union discrimination were found to be true, but the workers had already received formal notification of their dismissals, the Committee again urged the Government to ensure, in cooperation with the employer concerned, the reinstatement of the workers concerned or, if reinstatement was not possible, that they were paid adequate compensation taking into account the damage caused and the need to avoid repetition of such acts in the future. The Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of developments and transmit a copy of the Supreme Court judgement relating to the request for dismissal as soon as it was handed down. Moreover, the Committee once again requested the Government to take the necessary measures so that workers who consider that they have been subject to anti-union discrimination, in violation of section 28 of Act No. 21/2000, can have access to means of redress which, in addition to being speedy, should not only be impartial but also be seen to be such by the parties concerned. Finally, the Committee requested the Government to take all necessary measures to promote and encourage negotiations in the Bridgestone Tyre Indonesia Company with a view to the conclusion of a new collective agreement [see 340th Report, paras. 104-113].
2. 97. In a communication dated 9 June 2006 the Government stated, with respect to the anti-union discrimination proceedings, that the Indonesian police authorities had communicated with the Japanese police authorities asking for assistance in having Mr. H. Kawano (the ex-director of Bridgestone Tyre Indonesia Company) appear before the court. The Government has been in continuous contact with the Government of Japan regarding this matter. The Government also expressed its concern that the Committee was repeating its requests to the Government, even though the Government had previously provided clear responses to them.
3. 98. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government. As regards the anti-union discrimination proceedings of the four trade union officers, it notes with regret that the Government limits itself to repeating that it has been in contact with the Japanese authorities on bringing Mr. H. Kawano to appear before the Indonesian court – even though the Committee had requested that the said proceedings be completed without further delay, so that the four union officers did not suffer any further injustice due to the former director-president’s absence from the country. Noting with concern that four years have now elapsed since the complaint of anti-union discrimination was first made, and that no progress on these proceedings has been reported by the Government, the Committee once again urges the Government to ensure that the proceedings for the examination of allegations of anti-union discrimination against the four trade union officers be completed without further delay and in a fully impartial manner, regardless of the fact that the former director-president has since left the country. Moreover, recalling that it had previously noted with regret that the anti-union discrimination and the dismissal proceedings had gone ahead simultaneously, the Committee requests the Government to inform it of the decision of the Supreme Court with respect to the appeal made by these four trade union officers on the decision of the National Administrative High Court and to transmit all relevant texts and to confirm that no decision in favour of dismissal will be enforced prior to the resolution of the question of anti-union discrimination. If the allegations relating to anti-union discrimination are found to be true, but the trade union officers have already received formal notification of their dismissals, the Committee once again urges the Government to ensure, in cooperation with the employer concerned, that the trade union officers are reinstated or, if reinstatement is not possible, that they are paid adequate compensation such as to constitute sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, taking into account the damage caused and the need to avoid repetition of such acts in the future. The Committee once again requests to be kept informed in this respect.
4. 99. Noting with regret that the Government has provided no information on the measures taken so that workers who consider that they have been subject to anti-union discrimination, in violation of section 28 of Act No. 21/2000, can have access to means of redress which, in addition to being speedy, are not only impartial but also seen to be such by the parties concerned, the Committee refers this legislative aspect of the case to the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.
5. 100. Finally, the Committee regrets that the Government has provided no information on the measures taken to promote and encourage negotiations in the Bridgestone Tyre Indonesia Company with a view to the conclusion of a new collective agreement. It recalls in this respect that the complainant had alleged that the company had refused to negotiate with the new executive committee of the union and that there was, as a result, no collective agreement for the period 2005-07. The Committee once again requests the Government to encourage negotiations with a view to the conclusion of a collective agreement, and to indicate whether the workers at Bridgestone Tyre Indonesia Company are now covered by a collective agreement.