Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 346, Juin 2007

Cas no 2441 (Indonésie) - Date de la plainte: 18-JUIL.-05 - Clos

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

1. 75. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns anti-union dismissal, harassment of and threats of violence against trade union leaders, and shortcomings in the legislation at its May–June 2006 meeting, where it requested the Government to: take necessary measures to reinstate Mr Sukamto without loss of wages or benefits; review section 158(1)(f) of the Manpower Act of 2003 to ensure that the term “gross misconduct” is not interpreted so as to include legitimate trade union activities; and conduct an independent investigation without delay into the allegations of harassment, threats, and defamatory statements with a view to clarifying the facts, determining criminal responsibility, if any, and punishing those responsible [see 342nd Report, paras 594–628].
2. 76. The International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) submitted additional information in a communication of 22 August 2006. The complainant states that on 18 July 2006 it, along with representatives from the Federation of Independent Tobacco, Cane and Sugar Workers’ Unions (FPSM TG) of which the above-named Mr Sukamto was President, met with officials from the Department of Manpower and Transmigration, including four persons from the Department’s Directorate of Industrial Relations Institutions (KHI). At this meeting, the Government indicated that Ms Haiyani Rumondang, Head of the KHI Subdirectorate, had met with the management of the employer, the PT Gunung Madu Plantation, and had informed the latter that the recommendations formulated by the Committee in the present case did not yet constitute a decision of the ILO and were in no way legally binding upon the Government of Indonesia. The complainant adds that a similar view was expressed by Mr Sutanto, the Department’s Director-General for International Relations, at a later meeting on 18 July 2006, to the effect that the ILO’s decision was still “pending” and therefore no action was required.
3. 77. The complainant contends that the Government’s statements and failure to take concrete action strongly suggest that it has no intention of implementing the recommendations formulated by the Committee.
4. 78. In a communication dated 8 March 2007, the Government indicated that there is no possibility of reinstating Mr Sukamto at Gunung Madu Plantation due to the fact that the Government has no right to intervene before the Supreme Court where the case is pending. The Government specifies that it does not have authority to force the employer to reinstate the dismissed worker. However, an effort of persuasion was carried out as reported earlier, but both parties refused mediation. Now the case is pending before the Supreme Court and the Government will transmit the decision to the ILO when handed down.
5. 79. With respect to the complainant’s latest communication, the Committee must make clear that the conclusions and recommendations it formulated in this case, and which were approved by the Governing Body at its 296th Session in June 2006, are not “pending” or provisional in nature. They are to be implemented fully and promptly; in other words with the same due consideration the Government accords to all the obligations it has freely undertaken by virtue of its membership in the Organization.
6. 80. The Committee must recall in this respect the circumstances surrounding Mr Sukamto’s dismissal, which have never been contested by the Government. In particular, the Committee recalls that Mr Sukamto was dismissed due to the recommendation he made to the workers in respect of the employer’s proposal on a wage increase. It was in this context that the Committee had requested the Government to ensure his reinstatement and to review the Manpower Act in force so as to ensure that the term “gross misconduct” may not be interpreted so as to include legitimate trade union activities [see 342nd Report, para. 620].
7. 81. In these circumstances and recalling moreover the seriousness of the matters raised in the present case, the Committee once again strongly urges the Government to take immediate steps to implement all of its previous recommendations and in particular, to reinstate Mr Sukamto without loss of wages or benefits; review section 158(1)(f) of the Manpower Act of 2003 to ensure that the term “gross misconduct” is not interpreted so as to include legitimate trade union activities; and conduct an independent investigation into the allegations of harassment, threats and defamatory statements with a view to clarifying the facts, determining criminal responsibility, if any, and punishing those responsible. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this regard, including any court decisions handed down with regard to Mr Sukamto.