- What we stand for
- Our members that move with us
- See the impact we create
- Knowledge sharing
The complainant started working at the factory in May 2017 as a Temporary Appointment Work (PKWT) employee in the role of HR manager for three months. The contract was extended for another three months. 9 November 2017 was the last day of the complainant's second contract. About 1-2 weeks before the contract ended, the complainant was told that he/she would be assigned as HR manager to another factory in Jakarta, owned by the same supplier.
However, two days before 9 November, the General Manager (GM) asked him/her not to work anymore without giving clear reasons. The complainant said to the GM that as HR manager he/she should be employed as a permanent worker, rather than a contract worker, as stipulated in Law No.13/2003 Article 59 (1) and 59 (2). He/she also said that his/her contract was not signed in front of the GM but only put on his/her desk.
The complainant claimed that the reason why his/her contract was not renewed was his/her alleged affiliation with a factory's trade union, a colleague told him/her. He/she indicated that he/she tried to resolve this problem in a bipartite manner but failed.
The complainant sent a letter to the labour inspectorate office of North Jakarta to try to resolve this case. In the letter, he/she claimed that factory management did not comply with Law No.13/2003.
The complainant further claimed that management offered compensation but he/she refused it, as he/she wanted to be rehired as a permanent worker (PKWTT). The complainant wanted to speak to top management and be rehired as PKWTT.
On 10 January 2018, FWF's complaints handler in Indonesia received a complaint from a worker who had been employed as HR manager on a temporary contract. The complainant claimed that the factory had not followed the procedure on contract renewal properly. FWF declared this complaint admissible and informed Kjus, the FWF member sourcing at this factory. Kjus contacted factory management, who indicated that they had reached an agreement with the complainant through a third-party mediator and provided documentation. To avoid similar problems in the future, the factory was advised to review its HR policies to ensure they are in line with legal requirements. The complainant was satisfied with the agreement reached with the help of the third-party mediator. This case is resolved.
Kjus forwarded the complaint to factory management. Factory management indicated that, in the meantime, it had reached an agreement with the complainant with a third-party mediator and provided documentation.
FWF's complaints handler in Indonesia confirmed with the complainant that an agreement had been reached.
The complainant is satisfied with the resolution of the complaint by way of the agreement reached with a third-party mediator.
Although the individual case has been resolved, remediation with regards to the implementation of laws related to HR issues needs to take place as it remains unclear if the proper procedures are being followed.
For this reason, FWF expects Kjus to indicate to the factory that it needs to review its HR policies to make sure they are in line with legal requirements and thus also avoids (potentially unnecessary) time delays and mediation.
The case was resolved as an agreement was reached that both parties found acceptable.