Haglofs AB, Complaint 804

There is no discrimination in employment Safe and healthy working conditions

A worker from Indonesia filed a complaint because her contract was terminated due to (maternity) sickness and consequent absence from work. The worker has been working for seven years for the company. The worker is a mother of two children, 10 years old and 9 months old. When the company dismissed her, she was 4 months pregnant. She is the main breadwinner in the family.

The case began when the complainant called in sick to solve a private matter. The stress related to the private matter impacted the complainant's health and the doctor gave her a note to take rest for three days. The complainant is also taking care of two small children, the youngest of 9 months needs inhale therapy twice a week on Tuesday and Friday.

The complainant returned to work after her sick leave. When she reported back to work, she received a warning letter for absence from work without notice. She took the letter and returned back to work.

Roughly one month later the worker felt dizzy during working hours. Since she had to meet the production target, she continued working until lunch break. She then went to the company's clinic. After the examination, the midwife in the clinic informed her that she was pregnant. She then received an employee ID for pregnant worker.

In the next days, she frequently asked permission to leave as she experienced vomiting and felt not well. In addition, her baby was also sick that she had to go to hospital for a routine examination. She asked her colleague that lives next to her house to send her letter about her child's sickness to the head of department.

Since she was pregnant and her baby was not getting better, she called her line supervisor asking permission to not coming to work. She asked her colleague again to send the doctor notice regarding her children to the administration staff. She did not work from 1 July to 8 July 2019.

On 8 July 2019, she received a phone call from HR staff informing her that her contract had been terminated due to her absence from work. She was shocked and confused. She is the main breadwinner in the family since her husband does not have a job with a steady income. She feels pressured to provide her family with a steady income.

On 9 July 2019, she went to the company asking for an explanation regarding her dismissal. The factory informed her that she was fired and her termination letter had been issued. She tried to explain her situation to them and they asked her to bring the doctor's notice regarding her child to the administration. They told her to take her annual leave for two days on 10 and 11 July 2019. After that she did not receive any more updates.

The complainant could not follow up on her dismissal case until 19 August 2019. On 20 August 2019, after receiving an advice from a friend, she went to SPN, the union that she is a member of. On 6 September 2019, the trade union called her to go to the office and asked her to bring all the documents needed to file a complaint.

On 9 September 2019, she went to the union office and handed over all the documents. But she missed one document, her last salary slip. The next day she went to the factory for the payslip. After receiving the payslip, the HR staff told her that she had been dismissed from work as per 20 July 2019, according to the computer. HR told her that she had been dismissed and asked her to take home the employee ID and her pregnant employee ID.

After that, she talked to the trade union and they informed that the union could not help her anymore because the certificate of employment is not in the factory anymore.

The worker is the main breadwinner of the family and her due date for delivery is approaching. Her contract was terminated but she did not receive any severance pay from the company.

She wants to return back to work since it will help her to support her family.

Overview of the complaint investigation

2019-10-10 Investigation

Haglofs should get in contact with factory management about the case, to find out the factory's side of the story.

2020-05-27 Investigation

On May 27, the complainant received the recommendation of the District Manpower Office which stipulated:
1) Dismissal;
2) Asked factory management to pay IDR 3.959.153 or EUR 244;
3) Asked factory management to pay the complainant based on CBA;
4) To provide both complainant and company 10 days to respond if they agree or not agree.

During the 3 meetings of mediation, the complainant only joined in the 1st meeting. For the 2nd and 3rd, the Manpower Office changed the schedule on short notice so she was unable to attend.

Based on article 156 in Labour Law No.13/2003, the complainant would be entitled to almost IDR 50 million. Therefore, the complainant decided to not agree with the recommendation of the District Office, which will lead to a referral to the industrial relation court.