Solidaritas.net – The question “Does it allowed to work in another company during the trial of employee’s termination at the Court of Industrial Relationship still in progress?” ever submitted to the Hukumonline.com site on Tuesday, March 25th, 2014. And these questions answered by the moderator which refer to the Act number 13 year 2003 concerning Labor on article number 155 point 2:
“As long as the institute of industrial relationship conflict adjudication has not been established, both of employers and workers shall continue to perform their obligation.”
These answer following by an explanation that during the termination process has not been legally established, the employment relationship between employers and workers are still continued. Therefore, when the company’s regulation and/or the collective labor agreement determined the prohibition for the workers to work in another company during the course of employment relationship, the case could be qualified as the result of such violation.
Even inside of these question, it’s explained already that the workers no longer received his wages since the company terminated him. On the one hand, there were no sanction could be legally given to the employer if they refuse to performed their obligation but in the other hand, the workers still had to performed his obligation. The workers still had to comply the company regulation even though no longer received his wages. How could the workers survived without being allowed to work for a wage?
Although through the Act number 2 year 2004 concerning Settlement of Industrial Relationship Conflict on article number 96 point 1 stated that a judge must be established an interim verdict which required the employer to paid the wages, in accordance with Act number 13 year 2003 concerning Labor on article number 155 point 3, immediately after the first trial if the employer proven failed to paid the wages, but in practice has not done by most of the judge of the Court of Industrial Relationship.
In fact, at the other article which has the same point in the same site, a judge from Jakarta’s Court of Industrial Relationship mentioned her opinion that those interim verdict which should be established immediately after the first or second trial lately was not fair, because it didn’t gave either party to give his reasons. Does it mean the judge done a violation to the provisions of the law? Justice which only possessed by the strongest party, the employer, it wasn’t considering justice for the weakest, the worker.
Many opinions developed which declares a lot of weakness exist on the Indonesia’s law, but the following question appeared, why this weakness point has always harmed the people who has the weakest political economic level? Many of the court adjudication couldn’t be executed by variety reasons and even need a bail which have an equal value to the execution objects (SEMA number 4 year 2001).
Marxist explanation makes much more sense in analyzing these issues in a larger scale that the state and its instruments, including the law and its officials, just a tool which made only to protect the ruling class, a capitalist class interests. So basically, the weakness of the law mentioned above is a hole which created in order to protect their interests.
The Court of Industrial Relationship, which passed through Act number 2 year 2004 basically used to devitalized the labor movement through transforming the worker’s struggle which powering by mass mobilization, became individual resistance on the court tables who struggling on sheets of paper for later digging his own grave for his own death.