Caso individual (CAS) - Discusión: 1995, Publicación: 82ª reunión CIT (1995)

Convenio sobre el derecho de sindicación y de negociación colectiva, 1949 (núm. 98) - Indonesia (Ratificación : 1957)

A Government representative, referring to Case No. 1756 before the Committee on Freedom of Association, stated that the Government had sent its responses to the ILO dated 23 March, 10 May and 23 May 1994, and continued to pay the greatest attention to the protection and welfare of the workers. Under Act No. 3 of 1992, the social security programme for workers and its implementation had been expanded, while Act No. 11 of 1992 required employers to include their workers in their company's pension fund scheme. Each company was also under the obligation to set up a committee for occupational safety and health. Regional wage committees had long been established in each province whose members were derived from tripartite elements. The role of these committees was to conduct surveys on the minimum physical needs (MPN) and to make recommendations on the setting of the regional and sectoral minimum wage. Based on those recommendations, the regional minimum wage was raised from time to time. Thus, the average minimum wage has increased from 48.5 per cent of the MPN in 1990 to 63.6 per cent of the MPN by the end of 1993 and reached around 100 per cent of the MPN on 1 April 1995.

The existing labour laws and regulations provided adequate protection to the workers' rights to organize and to bargain collectively. Workers' and employers' organizations in various institutions have developed steadily. Their participation and role at national, regional and company levels were continually increasing, such as in the bipartite institutions, national and regional tripartite bodies, national and regional committees for labour dispute settlements, national and regional committees on occupational safety and health, national and regional productivity councils, national and regional wage councils, national and regional training councils. At the same time, the workers' unions had been actively exercising their rights through the formulation of collective labour agreements in each respective company.

In the framework of facilitating the growth of trade unions, the Minister of Manpower issued Regulation No. 1 on 17 January 1994. Based on that regulation, workers may establish an independent, democratic and genuine union in each respective company free from any obligation to be affiliated to other trade unions such as SPSI. During the last 18 months, about 800 independent and democratic trade unions had been established at company level. Each newly established trade union was required merely to submit information on its organizational status and the members of its executive to the Ministry of Manpower. At the same time, soon after the union was established, it was able to perform its functions and to negotiate with employers for the drafting of a collective agreement. In other words, those trade unions were not subject to any restrictions with regard to the number of their branches or their membership in order to be qualified to conduct negotiations and collective bargaining. The Government, the employers' organizations and the workers' organizations in Indonesia had been successful in establishing close cooperation through their own programmes and activities to promote, develop and draw the community's attention to the industrial relations system, with a view to creating industrial peace and to promoting the development of the company. A wide opportunity was given to workers at the plant level to establish trade unions enabling them to negotiate collective labour agreements. In the absence of a trade union or collective agreement, each company was required to have company regulations, approved by the Ministry of Manpower. With the steady increase in the number of unions and of collective negotiations, more company regulations would be replaced by the collective labour agreements.

Finally, the Government of Indonesia, in cooperation with the ILO, had formulated a five-year work-plan in the field of employment training and of industrial relations as well as of workers' education. The tripartite elements would be involved in each activity. The Government looked forward to the ILO's contribution to the realization of this plan in the very near future. Through this combined effort, it hoped to speed up the establishment of more independent, democratic and genuine trade unions in Indonesia.

The Workers' members regretted that the Government representative of Indonesia had not provided the sort of information which the Committee of Experts required in their report. They recalled that the Committee of Experts had been raising observations concerning the application of this Convention since 1979, and the case had been discussed in the Conference Committee in 1986, 1991, 1993, 1994 and again in 1995. In addition, a direct contacts mission was undertaken in November 1993 with a view to advising on measures to be taken to improve the application of Convention No. 98, and at that time the Committee of Experts indicated that the Office was ready and willing to provide technical assistance with respect to matters raised concerning this particular Convention.

Coming to measure the Government's response to the points raised in the Committee of Experts' latest report, the Government representative merely repeated what was contained in last year's report. But since then, there had been the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association which were approved by the Governing Body in November 1994, and the issues raised by the Committee of Experts. First of all, concerning the protection against acts of anti-trade union discrimination, it was quite clear that according to the Committee of Experts, the measures taken by the Government to settle cases of workers' dismissals did not guarantee adequate protection to workers where anti-trade union discrimination was involved. The employer was allowed under the law to invoke "lack of harmony in working relationships", and this vague concept had been used to justify the sacking of workers who were merely exercising their right to organize. The Experts recalled that one of the recommendations of the direct contacts mission was to guarantee by fact and by law protection against anti-trade union discrimination by employers. The Government promised last year to amend that legislation and to invoke the assistance of the ILO. However, the Workers' members did not get any impression whatsoever that in fact the promise that was made last year to commence amending the legislation with the help of the ILO had commenced. They wanted a clear indication from the Government that the present legislation was going to be amended and they had not had such an indication.

In the second part of the Committee of Experts' observation concerning protection against acts of interference by employers, a number of points were raised for which there was no reply from the Government representative.

The third point raised concerned a whole series of restrictions placed by the Government on unions regarding the membership requirements that they must reach before they were allowed the right to bargain. All these restrictions were in contravention of Convention No. 98 and should be removed. But again there was no indication from the Government except the reference to the Minister of Manpower Regulation No. 1 of 1994 about which this Committee already had full details last year, and it was not convinced that it dealt with the situation as revealed by the Committee of Experts.

In addition, there was only one recognized trade union in Indonesia, and while there was nothing wrong with that if that was what the workers wanted, one must not, however, legislate on that point or insist by creating such complicated regulations so that it became impossible for any union to be formed because of the restrictions and the interference of the military. For many years, the Workers' members had a distinct impression that the role of free trade unions in this country was severely restricted. There had been trials of trade unionists, charged with incitement to disobey government orders following labour demonstrations, and there was a widespread belief, supported by Amnesty International, that these trials fell far short of widely accepted international standards of fairness.

The Workers' members were encouraged to learn from the Government's statements that there had been various measures introduced, that the minimum wage was raised, that social security was being improved and that a five-year programme of training and education was being implemented. However, what was missing from that statement was some positive evidence or even some promises which would be kept that there would be changes in the legislation recommended by the Committee of Experts, and, more importantly, that there would be a change in practice because the Workers' members were seriously disturbed by what was taking place in this country at the present moment.

The Employers' members, in recalling that this case had been before the Committee on several occasions in the past, noted that the Government representative reported on general developments in her country, on changes as far as social policy was concerned, but gave very little indication on those points which were raised by the Committee of Experts in their report: the absence of provisions to protect workers against acts of anti-union discrimination; the absence of sufficiently detailed legislative provisions to protect workers' organizations against interference by employers; and restrictions on free collective bargaining.

The Employers' members were concerned in the first instance that workers could be dismissed because of a lack of harmony in the working relationship. Indeed, this was a very broad and general statement, and in practice it was resorted to in cases of union membership of the worker. The Government had for some time been drawing attention to a Ministerial Decree, dating back to 1992, which explained that trade union membership was not a ground for dismissal. Last year the Government representative accepted a suggestion made by the Experts that this should be strengthened and clarified in law, so that it should be expressly stated in a piece of legislation that union membership must not be a ground for dismissal. This involved turning into a statutory provision something which was already covered in a Decree, and then seeing that this was actually also implemented in practice. The question remained open in this connection as to whether the International Labour Office's technical assistance might be required all the more so, as from what the Government stated last year, its aim coincided with what the Committee of Experts was asking it to do.

As regards the possibility and the extent to which employers could interfere in trade union activities, the Government again stated that there was a Ministerial Decree which made this interference impossible, but the Experts were asking for information on the extent to which this ministerial decision was actually applied in practice and for the strengthening of the legislation in this regard. So it was not a situation where there was no protection whatsoever but rather there was a request for clarification and strengthening of rules and regulations, and a request to ensure that what existed on paper was actually applied in practice. However, on this point, no further information had been given by the Government representative.

The third point of concern for the Committee of Experts was the various requirements for a trade union to be able to engage in collective bargaining or to be registered. Convention No. 98 did not contain any detailed provisions in this regard but a number of standards could be derived from it, since the aim of the Convention was to promote free collective bargaining wherever possible. It was known exactly how many workers and what sort of percentage of membership was required in Indonesia in order for a trade union to be allowed to engage in collective bargaining. The comparison of these figures with those contained in the report of the Committee of Experts for 1991 revealed a considerable change in the right direction. For example, in 1991, the requirement was that a union had to be represented in 20 provinces and 100 districts, and now it was only five and 25 respectively. As for company units, the requirement in 1991 was 1,000 and that had now dropped to 100. The Employers' members requested the Government to submit the specific figures in a written report and to indicate whether it was planning any further change in this connection.

The members of this Committee had always agreed in the sense that a single trade union was always a breach of the Convention, if it was prescribed by law, and an indicator of that would be, for example, if one specific trade union was referred to in the law. However, there was no comment on this particular subject in the report of the Committee of Experts, and according to the Government representative, there was a large number of newly established trade unions which could readily be registered without undue complications and could proceed to engage in collective bargaining virtually immediately.

All in all, there was clearly still need for change in the situation, for greater clarity and strengthening of legislation and for better controls as to actual practical application. Therefore, the Employers' members requested the Government representative of Indonesia to deal with these specific points in a written report and to provide replies to these questions and, above all, to indicate whether the Government was planning any further change and improvement in the near future along the lines of what this Committee had asked it to do, because the Employers believed it to be necessary.

The Workers' member of Indonesia provided information about developments in the All-Indonesia Workers' Union (SPSI). In early October 1994, SPSI conducted its Second Convention which adopted the new structure of SPSI from one that was unitarian to a federation consisting of 13 industrial unions. Two of them were already affiliated to international trade secretariats: the All-Indonesia Seafarers' Union, affiliated to the International Transport Workers' Federation, and the All-Indonesia Timber and Forestry Workers' Union, affiliated to the International Federation of Building and Woodworkers' Union. The other 11 industrial unions had already contacted respective international trade secretariats and would invite them to their own national Congresses, which would be held between July and October of 1995 before the Congress of SPSI.

On the other hand, workers who were not interested in affiliating to SPSI also had, on the basis of Ministerial Decree No. 1/1994, the right to organize and bargain collectively through established independent, democratic and genuine trade unions in their respective companies.

In the case of SBSI, the All-Indonesian Prosperity Workers' Union, the speaker recalled the statement made by the group leader of the ICFTU mission to Indonesia, that SBSI was not a real trade union movement, but only a group of people who were very sympathetic to the struggle of the workers.

The Workers' member of the Netherlands supported the statement made by the Workers' spokesman and particularly insisted that the law should not recognize any one trade union by name. With the changes recently made by the Indonesian Government on the right to organize, the new law made it possible to establish the enterprise-level unions which were not affiliated to the SPSI, but if they wanted to form federations, it was in that law that they should affiliate to the SPSI, which was mentioned by name in contradiction to the classical principle which had been established by the Committee of Experts, by this Committee, by the Committee on Freedom of Association, and supported also by the Employers' members.

The speaker regretted that the Committee of Experts left a couple of points out in the report as compared to the report of last year. He considered that there was no reason to leave out the question of the military because interference of the Government and of the military in labour conflicts and in trade union affairs was a basic illness of the Indonesian trade union movement. As long as that key problem existed, the Committee of Experts should pay attention to it.

Another point which was left out was compulsory arbitration. One of the bad things about the arbitration system in Indonesia was that, when trade union leaders or activists dismissed for their defence of workers' interests won their case in arbitration courts, they were never reinstated in their jobs and the most they obtained in Indonesia was compensation and for the rest they were usually put on a blacklist without the possibility of finding another job. That was the real situation, and therefore it was very important that the point of the Indonesian arbitration system was kept under surveillance by the Committee of Experts. The speaker strongly urged the Experts not to drop these two points, unless they had good reasons to do so, which were not present in the report this year.

The Experts' report made it clear that there were definite and long-standing weaknesses in Indonesian labour law. There were also definite efforts of the Indonesian Government to improve the minimum wage, for example, and that should be noted by this Committee. On the other hand, it should remain aware of the possibility that much of the changes advertised by the Government might be window-dressing and the Workers' members would take a position giving them the benefit of critical doubt, a wait-and-see attitude, first see and then believe.

Despite all the shortcomings in labour law criticized by the Experts, the basic weakness in Indonesia was the enforcement of the law, and if it came indeed to protection against anti-union discrimination, interference by employers in internal trade union affairs, restrictions in collective bargaining, there were many examples of non-enforcement. The basic problem was that the Government did not make a great effort to see that legislation was being enforced, and that had been the main reason for an enormous wave of strikes against non-payment of the legal minimum wage in the past few years. As in the past, it was very important that the Committee of Experts continued to take a close look at that. The same applied to the right to organize and bargain collectively, the heart of this Convention, which the speaker illustrated by two examples. By the end of last year journalists in Indonesia set up an independent journalist association, the AJI. That organization by its mere existence came into competition with the official government-controlled journalists' organization, the PWI, and was severely repressed. Several of the leaders were arrested and put in jail, a long list of people mentioned by name were dismissed or deprived of membership in the PWI because the membership of the PWI was declared incompatible with the membership of this independent association. The editors of the newspapers and magazines had been instructed by the Indonesian Government to dismiss people who were members of the AJI. The AJI was a professional organization wanting to represent the interests of workers in their profession, and it should not have been possible to suppress an organization only because it was parallel to the official government-recognized one.

The second example concerned the SBSI, which, in the eyes of the two trade union internationals represented at this Conference, the ICFTU and the WCL, was a genuine trade union. However, this organization was meeting with fierce repression of the Government which had refused to recognize it. It had warned employers and local authorities not to deal with this organization, which meant that it practically could not function at the enterprise level, and each and every worker declaring himself or herself to that union faced enormous risks, one of which was immediate dismissal. Despite all these obstacles the SBSI had definitely acquired a following, although, as was proved in the documentation underlying Case No. 1773 before the Committee on Freedom of Association, it was not a large organization.

Labour relations, as had been stated in this Committee previously, were seen by the Indonesian Government primarily as a security issue. Therefore, the Government wanted to strictly control the trade union movement and labour relations. This was why the police and the military interfered so often, and the retired military officers, many of them, were planted in the structure of the SPSI, the official union, at the regional and at the local level. This stemmed from an official state doctrine ("Dwi Fungsi") which specifically said that the military not only must have a role in the defence of the country but should also participate in the larger organizations in society. As long as this government doctrine existed, the military would remain in these positions. So the Government should be asked to withdraw this doctrine which would perhaps cure, in due time, one of the main diseases of the country's labour relations system. Was it ready to do that in due time?

The speaker addressed two other concrete questions to the Government of Indonesia: "If, under the new legislation, where workers can set up unions through their own choice, the SBSI sets up a union in a plant which is not yet organized, will that SBSI union have the right to organize and to bargain a collective labour agreement? In view of the future congress of the SPSI and of SPSI unions, will for once the Government refrain from interference in trade union elections?"

With respect to the conclusions that might be formulated by the Committee, he hoped that they would include the points concerning the military interference and the compulsory arbitration, and that the next report of the Committee of Experts would draw attention to the enormous gap in Indonesia between legislation and implementation of the law.

Finally, he hoped that the Committee would express strongly and firmly - as strongly and firmly as the Committee on Freedom of Association did - that the right to organize and bargain collectively should also indeed be open for other organizations than the official state-controlled organizations and that a strong appeal would be made here so that the Government would ensure that military intervention and its own intervention in any internal trade union affairs and labour matters as a whole would be stopped.

The Workers' member of Japan adopted the statement made by the Workers' spokesman and the Workers' member of the Netherlands. Having listened attentively to the statement made by the representative of the Indonesian Government, he noted that the promises given still stood largely as empty words, and some of the promises and some of the changes had brought very little improvement in view of the magnitude of the problem referred to in the report.

As regards the question of protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, the absence of such protection became even clearer in the light of the waves of strikes and demonstrations which took place last year in Indonesia. In fact, the lack of such protection was partly a cause of these industrial disputes. As regards protection of workers' organizations against acts of interference by employers, the complaints contained detailed examples not only of interference with workers' organizations by the employers but also by the Government itself. With respect to restrictions on collective bargaining, particularly in public services, the problem was that, in Indonesia, in the event that the Government owned more than 5 per cent of a company's stock, the company was considered to be a national enterprise and therefore workers had no right to form trade unions. A vast section of workers did not have freedom of association and were completely left out of any collective bargaining process.

While there were confusingly many so-called ministerial orders governing labour relations, the real problem arose from the absence of a single clear-cut labour law which complied with the ILO Convention. The speaker concluded that he was more pessimistic this year because of the statement made by the Government representative which had a very different tone from her speech last year.

The Government member of the United States noted that last year she had stated before the Committee that the situation in practice in Indonesia was far more serious than was apparent from a reading of the report of the Committee of Experts. She noted that once again the Government planned to cooperate with the ILO to bring its legislation and practice into conformity with the Convention, and welcomed the Government's indication that a number of legislative measures had been taken in cooperation with the ILO, but emphasized that the Government's intentions must be met with adequate and speedy action. She hoped that the specific recommendations made in reports of the Committee of Experts, the Committee on Freedom of Association and by the direct contacts mission would be taken very seriously and that changes far beyond those of a merely cosmetic nature would be made, thus leading to conformity with the Convention in the very near future.

Another Government representative, in responding to the observations of the Workers' members, pointed out that significant progress which occurred through gradual improvement over a period of time sometimes was more difficult to detect by those who had been witnessing the gradual progress through the entire period than by those observing only the difference between the circumstances at the beginning and the end of this period. In his view, this was what had occurred with respect to his country, which had been indicating examples of progress at the last two meetings of this Committee. For example, last year his Government had reported that the minimum wage was sufficient for 70 per cent of basic needs, and now it met 100 per cent of these needs. Last year, the number of independent company unions was about 100, but now it was about 800, an increase of 700 per cent. He asked whether any country in the world had experienced such great progress in such a short time. He then emphasized the amount of time that was needed in order to introduce new legislation. In 1991, it was indicated to the Government that it should review existing legislation, but only after 1992 was it able to begin this review. In 1994 Ministerial Decrees Nos. 1 and 15A were adopted, which represented great change, and he noted the reference by the Employers' members to the fact that some improvement had occurred. In outlining the process for preparing legislation in his country, he stressed the time needed to conceive of an idea for new legislation, to engage in tripartite consultation, to redraft legislation taking into account input from employers and workers, and to ask for further comments from them on the draft. The lengthy process involved in preparing new Conventions, which were adopted four to five years after the idea for a Convention was raised, was likened to the procedure involved in adopting new labour legislation in his country. For this reason he considered it unlikely that his Government would report on a new Labour Act in this Committee at next year's Conference. Five years ago three new bills were submitted to the Cabinet Secretariat. One of these, on Social Security, was adopted in 1992, but the remaining two bills were returned for refinement, and had recently been submitted once again to the Cabinet Secretariat. With the strong commitment of the Minister responsible he hoped that the redrafted bill would be selected as a matter of national priority among the approximately 50 other bills under consideration, but he said that it was unlikely that it would materialize as a law by next year's Conference. With regard to the restrictions on collective bargaining, he stated that it was now clear that where company-level unions had been formed and an executive established, they were not restricted from collective bargaining and entering into collective agreements. He drew a distinction between dismissal for engaging in trade union activities and dismissal for misconduct. The former was protected by the Trade Union Law, while the latter was not. The Committee of Disputes Settlement, composed of five employer, five government, and five worker representatives, was responsible for deciding whether dismissal was appropriate or not. With regard to demonstrations and strikes, he pointed out the difference between the practice elsewhere and in Indonesia, and gave as an example the announcement by the KLM crew during his flight from Indonesia that it would be engaging in a strike at a specific later date, and for a duration of from six to eight hours. In his country they had never experienced such a well-organized demonstration or strike, although they followed similar regulations on conducting strikes and demonstrations. This exemplified, in his view, the need for regulations that had clear objectives and clear demands of which both employers and employees were informed. In this way it would be clear what action should be taken to protect employers, workers and society. With reference to the invocation of a "lack of harmony in the working relationship", he pointed out that in many cases the workers themselves raised this question. He then reiterated that every trade union when established could engage in collective bargaining and negotiate collective agreements. With respect to the five-year plan, the minimum wage and pension funds, he noted that his Government would accelerate the realization of objectives for these activities and hoped to continue to make progress. In response to the observations of the Workers' member of the Netherlands regarding the naming of a particular trade union in the Regulation, he considered that there was nothing wrong with this as after a period of one year a new trade union could choose whether or not it wished to join the SPSI. If it felt that there was no need to do so, the trade union was free to make the decision not to join the SPSI. As stated before the Committee in 1991, 1993 and 1994 regarding military involvement, there had been a division of work between the country's security apparatus and the Ministry of Labour. If workers in their activities went beyond industrial relations matters, the security of the country became an issue. In this respect, it was not concerned at all with the industrial relations system, but was a matter of the role of the military in security aspects and national development. With reference to the requirement of a permit for conducting meetings, he said that such permits were needed so that the security apparatus would be informed. To explain the need for such permits, he gave an example of a church meeting held in 1992 which could have resulted in the death of many persons if the security apparatus had not been present. Although the security apparatus should not be present at meetings, it should be aware that they were taking place so that it could quickly settle down any problems that might arise. With respect to the enforcement of labour legislation, from 1994 to 1995, 183 companies were brought to court regarding violations of regulations of minimum wage legislation and, of these, 21 employers were penalized. He then emphasized that the Government did not have a list of workers dismissed from companies for engaging in trade union activities. He did not know whether employers who interviewed potential workers were actually aware, during the recruitment process, of the practices and backgrounds of employees, and stated that the Government had no information regarding dismissal for such reasons and discrimination against such workers who sought re-employment. On the other hand, when an employer violated labour legislation, the Government published this information so that society was aware. For this reason, he suggested that, if a blacklist did exist, it was of employers rather than of workers. With regard to the establishment of AJI as a competitor of a recognized trade union of journalists, he was unaware of this matter and noted that the AJI had never reported to the Ministry of Manpower regarding its existence. He suggested that the Workers' delegates of his country might give relevant information. The Government had already communicated information to the Committee of Experts concerning the SBSI and the riot in Medan, and he had documentation on this matter available to all those who wished to have further information. He noted that information had already been given on the public service to this Committee in 1991, 1993 and 1994. He emphasized the very particular relationship that existed between his country and the United States, and noted the intensive communication that had occurred in 1992 at which time a total of 25 kg of documentation was provided. In the past, the Government had invited a delegation of the Government of the United States to come to Indonesia on two or three occasions. Another mission from the United States was expected at the end of June or early July 1995, and his country would be pleased to provide as much information as necessary. In response to the statement of the Workers' member of the Netherlands regarding the involvement of the military in the executive of the SPSI, the latter would hold a congress by the end of this year prepared by all branches and regional executives, and he thought that they had certain criteria on who could be elected to the executive of the SPSI and how such elections were to be conducted.

The Workers' member of the Netherlands asked the Government representative again whether, under the revised legislation, a non-SPSI trade union could be established at the enterprise level, choose to join the SPSI and then proceed to negotiate collective agreements on behalf of workers in that enterprise.

In response, the Government representative stated that he had not yet considered whether workers could set up a central union other than the SPSI. If they were to do so pursuant to a democratic decision, and it was their right to do so, it was possible. From his personal point of view, as this type of trade union was just beginning to develop, little was known in this area. Such trade unions needed to be mature enough to do this. The Government wished to see leadership of this kind of trade union grow from within to accommodate this, and for this reason it was making considerable efforts to prepare leadership of trade unions through workers' education. He considered that they should be allowed to decide on the above matter later.

The Workers' members agreed with the suggestion of the Employers' members that a written report on all the issues raised in the report of the Committee of Experts and in this Committee would be helpful. They were grateful for the contribution made by the Government member of the United States, but remarked that it would have been helpful if this report had been given at the commencement of the discussion on this case, so that there would have been time to prepare a proper response, as the report could open up a new debate. They stressed that there had not been a satisfactory reply by the Government representative to the questions raised. The nature of the three bills submitted to the Cabinet Secretariat five years ago was unclear. They assumed that in addition to the bill on social security there was a bill on collective bargaining and on trade unions. They suggested that the reference by the Government representative to the 50 other bills pending was made to provide the Government with an opportunity to return next year to explain that it was unable to announce progress because the bills had been sent back. In their view, the example given of the need for the security apparatus to be present at the church meeting gave the Committee an understanding of the situation in that country. They noted that there had been no promises made by the Government to institute changes of the substantial nature required. Although the Employers' members and the Government member of the United States had noted some small changes, and the Workers' members agreed that one or two tiny changes had been made, the Workers' members stated that the situation had basically not changed and was not going to change. They said that the Comittee could not change the nature of a society of a country, or bring about fairness, reason and democracy in it, but it could indicate the manner in which Conventions were to be applied and what might be the democratic role that could be adopted in respect of this Convention. They suggested that the Government representative tell his Government that these issues must be dealt with during the next year. They stressed that they were seriously disturbed and deeply concerned about the way trade unionism was practised in his country, and hoped that the Government would provide a detailed written report in reply to the Committee of Experts and to this Committee. They hoped that the conclusions would convey the deep concerns of the Workers' members on the issues raised and the apparent failure of the Government to meet the requirements of the Committee of Experts not just this year but for many, many years.

The Employers' members noted that there had been a very extensive and detailed debate which in parts was highly interesting, and had given a great deal of insight into these issues, which went well beyond those contained in the report of the Committee of Experts. They noted the readiness of the Government representative to address some of the points in some depth, although he did not have a solution to offer for all of the problems.

The Committee noted the report of the Committee of Experts, the information provided by the Government representative on the application of the Convention, as well as the discussion. The Committee felt deeply concerned that, in spite of the direct contacts mission that went to Indonesia in November 1993, the discussion within the present Committee last year, and the technical advisory mission that went to Indonesia in January 1995, much progress was yet to be achieved to ensure in law and in practice the full application of the Convention. The Committee felt encouraged by the information furnished during the meeting by the Government representative, inter alia, on the formation of more trade unions. However, the Committee urged the Government to take specific measures to guarantee protection against anti-union discrimination in fact and law, to ensure de facto non-interference by the employers in workers' organizations, and to establish a regime of laws, rules and practice by dismantling all restrictive registration requirements and thereby creating a free environment for formation of unions without hindrance. The Committee further called upon the Government to furnish a detailed report to the Committee of Experts on specific further measures taken by it with reference to the matters mentioned in the report of the Committee of Experts and to fully comply with all the parameters of Convention No. 98 and to guarantee collective bargaining.