Indonesia

"Article 2 of the Convention. Right to organize of civil servants. The Committee had previously expressed trust that the Government would adopt the implementing regulations to give effect to the right of civil servants to form and join organizations of their own choosing. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Trade Union Act applies to private sector workers while civil servants are covered by Law No. 5 of 2014 concerning Civil Servants. Moreover, the Constitution (Article 28 E) grants civil servants, in their capacity as citizens, the right to join any professional organization of their choosing. The Committee further notes that the Government refers to an obligation imposed on civil servants, depending on their status, to join respective professional organization of Functional Positions (JF) or KORPRI, a professional forum of which civil servants became members automatically upon their admission to service. The Committee observes that these organizations do not appear to be organizations in the sense provided for by the Convention or equivalent to organizations of workers of the private sector. The Committee once again requests the Government to take necessary measures to ensure the right of civil servants to form and join organizations of their own choosing, as is their right under the Convention, and to provide information on all steps taken to that end."

"Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee had previously urged the Government to review sections 5, 14 and 24 of Law No. 2 of 2004 concerning the Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement Act (IRDS Act), to ensure that compulsory arbitration during collective bargaining can only be invoked under exceptional circumstances. The Committee notes that according to the Government, the IRDS Act promotes the resolution of disputes through the negotiation of the involved parties. Ministerial regulation No. 31/2008 requires the holding of bipartite negotiations before resorting to mediation and conciliation; should these procedures fail, the Industrial Relations Court may settle the dispute as a last resort. The Government further indicates that the arbitration procedure must be based on written agreements between the parties involved (section 32 of the IRDS Act), before repeating its previous assertion that there is therefore no strong reason to amend the above-noted sections. The Committee notes this information and observes, additionally, that the settlement of disputes through arbitration is established by sections 29-54 of the IRDS Act. The Committee recalls, however, that sections 5, 14 and 24 of the IRDS Act allow one of the parties to an industrial dispute to file a legal petition to the Industrial Relations Court for final settlement of the dispute, if conciliation or mediation fails. The Committee highlights in this respect that the possibility for a single party to collective bargaining to submit the resolution of the dispute to the decision of a court has the same restrictive effect on the principle of free and voluntary collective bargaining as compulsory arbitration mechanisms. In this sense, unilateral recourse to a court to settle a collective bargaining process is only acceptable: (i) in essential services in the strict sense of the term; (ii) in the case of disputes in the public service involving public servants engaged in the administration of the State; (iii) when, after protracted and fruitless negotiations, it becomes obvious that the deadlock will not be broken without some initiative by the authorities; and (iv) in the event of an acute crisis. Accordingly, the Committee once again urges the Government to take measures to amend sections 5, 14 and 24 of the IRDS Act to ensure that the unilateral recourse to compulsory arbitration or to a tribunal to settle a collective bargaining process may only occur in the limited set of situations mentioned above. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress in this respect."