Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 328, Juin 2002

1. 325. The Committee already examined the substance of this case at its meeting in November 2001 when it presented an interim report to the Governing Body [326th Report, paras. 321?362, approved by the Governing Body at its 282nd Session (November 2001)].
2. 326. The International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) transmitted new allegations and additional information in communications dated 15 and 16 October, 2 and 13 November and 14 December 2001, 11 January, 14 February and 15 April 2002.
3. 327. At the request of the Committee, the Employers’ Association of Indonesia (APINDO), as a national employers’ organization involved in the matter, transmitted its observations on the case in a communication dated 14 December 2001. The Government sent additional observations in communications dated 7 and 24 January, 14 February and 16 May 2002.
4. 328. Indonesia has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 329. At its November 2001 meeting, in the light of the Committee’s interim conclusions, the Governing Body made the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee requests the Government to indicate exactly how many members of the Shangri-La Hotel Independent Workers’ Union (SPMS) who were dismissed pursuant to their involvement in strike action are demanding reinstatement in their jobs at the Shangri-La Hotel. It further requests the Government to take steps to ensure the reinstatement of these persons if they so wish.
   • (b) The Committee reminds the Government that the arrest and detention, even if only briefly, of trade union leaders and trade unionists for exercising legitimate trade union activities constitute a violation of the principles of freedom of association, and that measures depriving trade unionists of their freedom on grounds related to their trade union activity, even where they are merely summoned or questioned for a short period, constitute an obstacle to the exercise of trade union rights.
   • (c) The Committee urges the Government to institute without delay an independent judicial inquiry into the physical assault on Mr. Mohammed Zulharman, treasurer of the SPMS, in February 2001 with a view to fully clarifying the facts, determining responsibility, punishing those responsible and preventing the repetition of such acts. It requests the Government to keep it informed of the results of such an inquiry.
   • (d) The Committee requests both the complainant and the Government to provide further clarification on the allegation of bribery surrounding the dismissal of Mr. Halilintar Nurdin, president of the SPMS.
   • (e) In order to pronounce itself on this case in full knowledge of all the facts, the Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the Collective Labour Agreement (CLA) prevailing during the time of the dispute at the Shangri-La Hotel, as well as the observations of the national organizations of workers and employers involved in this dispute.
   • (f) The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations without delay on the new allegations presented by the complainant in communications dated 24 July as well as 15 and 16 October 2001.
2. 330. The complainant’s allegations of 24 July 2001 were set forth in the Committee’s previous examination of this case [326th Report, paras. 336-340]. In particular, the IUF had alleged that the dismissal of Mr. Halilintar Nurdin was the first in a series of steps, taken by the management and supported by the Ministry of Manpower and Transmigration, aimed at breaking up the union. It provides testimony to support this contention from workers who stated that they were intimidated to sign affidavits conveying their resignation from the Shangri-La Hotel Workers’ Independent Union (SPMS) when they were summoned for registration for re-employment. Furthermore, the IUF contests all innuendos that the workers’ protest caused the cessation of hotel activities, since the majority of SPMS members kept working as usual until the company had executed a lock-out and sent them home or dismissed them on 23 December 2000, evacuating the guests and cancelling various functions and events. The IUF adds that the workers had not caused the slightest physical damage to hotel facilities and the broken glass door and other damage was caused by the police when searching the premises.

B. The complainant’s additional allegations

1. 331. In its communication dated 15 October 2001, the complainant alleges that a police squad from Central Jakarta Resort dispersed a peaceful action taken by 18 Shangri-La union members on the sidewalk in front of the Shangri-La Hotel on 25 August 2001. According to the IUF and its affiliate, the Shangri-La Hotel Independent Workers’ Union (SPMS), 60 police officers equipped with guns and trucks dispersed the union action for allegedly disturbing hotel activity and public order. While the vice-commander said that the union was not authorized to picket, the union states that it had notified the authorities of the impending picket on 17 August 2001. Fourteen workers were taken to the police station in police trucks, were held until midnight and were asked to return the following Wednesday.
2. 332. On a more general note in its communications of 16 October 2001 and 11 January 2002, the complainant provides documentation of public interviews with the Minister of Manpower and Transmigration and with the Shangri-La Hotel legal adviser, separately, the content of which, in its view, demonstrates that trade union rights violations are a normal course of affairs in Indonesia and the Government can do very little to intervene. In some cases, according to the Minister’s statement to the press transmitted by the complainant, ministry officials even collude with employers to thwart workers’ efforts to set up labour unions.
3. 333. In its communication of 2 November 2001, the complainant provides additional information concerning developments in this case. The complainant refers in particular to the judgement of the South Jakarta District Court on 1 November 2001 ordering seven members and supporters of the Shangri-La Hotel Union to pay some US$2 million in compensation to the Shangri-La Hotel for allegedly causing losses in connection with the protest demonstration on 22 December 2000. A copy of this judgement in Indonesian was transmitted with its communication of 13 November 2001. The complainant contends that this judgement effectively deprives the SPMS of its freedom of association and collective bargaining rights through the imposition of exorbitant economic penalties. Furthermore, the complainant provides documentation to attest to the union’s efforts to seek a peaceful resolution of the dispute, which have only met with refusal on the part of the hotel management.
4. 334. In its communication of 14 December 2001, the complainant provides a list of the 81 employees who continue to seek reinstatement following their unjustified dismissal.
5. 335. In its communication dated 14 February 2002, the complainant submits documentation, by way of example, of one specific case of dismissal of a SPMS officer who, although on leave and not even in Jakarta at the time the events took place, was dismissed by the hotel allegedly for defamation and criminal acts. According to the complainant, the fact that the Government merely rubber-stamped this dismissal demonstrates that it has failed in its responsibility to uphold the trade union rights of a dismissed union officer, no matter how ridiculous and unproven the charges.
6. 336. In its communication of 15 April 2002, the IUF indicates that the State Administrative Court ruled on 26 March that the mass dismissal of the SPMS members following the December 2000 lockout was illegal, thus overturning the P4P decision and clearing the way for the reinstatement of at least the 81 union members who had refused the compensation offered in return for the loss of their jobs and livelihood. The IUF adds that the hotel owners and the P4P have lodged separate appeals against this ruling. According to the IUF, the normal time for such an appeals process to be heard is one-and-half years. For the 81 workers awaiting reinstatement, this is a case of "justice delayed, justice denied". The IUF considers that the decision of the P4P to appeal this ruling, which was similar to the Committee’s recommendation in November 2001, displays the continuing practice of favouring employers over the rights of workers and the Government’s unwillingness to effectively implement Conventions Nos. 87 and 98.

C. The Government’s reply

1. 337. In its communication dated 24 January 2002, the Government provides the following additional information. The Government states that it has been consistent in the implementation of the existing labour legislation, including efforts made to encourage the establishment of trade unions and to secure workers’ rights to associate and to bargain collectively. It has ratified the ILO core Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 and issued respective national laws and regulations. Referring to the case of the Shangri-La Hotel, Jakarta, the Government has encouraged companies to secure freedom of establishment and of development of trade unions. The progress in the era of a single union up to the current multi-trade unions has indicated that the Government fully guarantees the implementation of these ILO Conventions.
2. 338. In reply to allegations made by the IUF, the Government indicates that the case of the Shangri-La Hotel has been settled in accordance with the prevailing legislation. Application of permit for employment termination of those who are members of the SPMS was submitted by the company. The company claimed that the members of the SPMS carried out activities classified as "grave offences" as stipulated under points 21, 30, 35 and 39 of the Classification of Grave Offence of the valid Collective Labour Agreement (CLA) (sent by government communication of 7 January 2002). The permit was issued by the District Committee for Labour Disputes Settlement (P4D) as an independent institution responsible for this case. Members of P4D are derived from representatives of the tripartite constituents.
3. 339. The permit for employment termination of Mr. Halilintar Nurdin (decision of the Central Office of Labour Disputes Settlement (P4P) of 11 April 2001) was issued in accordance with the procedure and mechanism as regulated under Act No. 22 of 1957 in view of Act No. 2 of 1964. Based on the statement of resignation of Mr. Halilintar Nurdin on 12 July 2001 through mass media, industrial disputes between Mr. Nurdin and the Shangri-La Hotel were completely finished and settled. Another permit for employment termination of two workers was issued since they had completed their annual leave but refused to continue their work and joined the protect action instead.
4. 340. The prohibition of instalment of poster, banner and so forth by the workers in the company’s premises is the right of the management/company as the owner of the business area. This action is contrary to section 29 of Act No. 21 of 2000. Inviting other parties or affiliates of trade unions to attend an internal meeting, without prior notification to the respective management/company as the owner of the business area, is obviously not in accordance with universal ethics.
5. 341. The workers went on strike without prior notification to the competent authority (District Office of the Ministry of Manpower and Transmigration). This action was considered as an offence against section 6 of Act No. 22 of 1957. In this regard, the District Office of the Department of Manpower and Transmigration (DOMT) issued a letter in which it mentioned that the strike on 30 December 2001 was illegal. So, the permit for employment termination of 509 employees involved in this serious action was issued by the P4P, and not by the Government.
6. 342. The presence of the police and the number of security guards within the company area was requested by the company/management subject to secure the company’s assets and to prevent criminal actions.
7. 343. The issue of contention concerned the valid Collective Labour Agreement (CLA) which states that 93 per cent of the service charge shall be paid to the respective workers in accordance with the "point system" of the company. The distribution may be changed based on consensus of the management and the trade union concerned. The workers’ claim on "pro rata distribution" of service charge should be negotiated between both parties to reach a consensus as regulated under article 21.4 of the company’s CLA signed on 13 December 1999 and shall not be contrary to the Minister of Manpower Decision of 1999 on the payment of service charge in hotel, restaurant and other tourism business activities.
8. 344. On the issue of intimidation, the Government states that appropriate evidence and witnesses should be able to prove, under Indonesian law, the allegations in respect of those who had been dismissed and from whom withdrawal of their membership from the SPMS had allegedly been required in order to obtain their reinstatement.
9. 345. The Government adds the following precisions in reply to the Committee’s queries in its previous recommendation. The number of members of the Shangri-La Hotel Independent Workers’ Union (SPMS) who were terminated under the decision of the Central Committee of Labour Disputes Settlement (P4P) on 11 April 2001, and who still claim reinstatement is, actually, 79 workers (list enclosed with Government’s communication). This number differs from that which was reported by the IUF to the ILO in that the IUF includes two workers who, while not having taken their severance payment following the P4D’s decision, did not make a further appeal against the decision. Therefore, the Government did not include their names on the list. Their severance payment will be processed in due time.
10. 346. In line with the recommendation of the Committee that the Government take measures to guarantee reinstatement of those dismissed workers, the Government has tried to settle the case to the mutual satisfaction of both disputing parties beyond the legal action. The Government invited them in several meetings to seek fair settlement that may be mutually accepted. Four meetings were held in August, October and November 2001 (chaired by the Minister of Manpower and Transmigration). In those meetings, the Government suggested to the employer to reinstate some or all of the dismissed workers, particularly those who requested to be reinstated. However, the employer rejected reinstatement of the dismissed workers but offered as an alternative to provide compensation in cash higher than that decided by P4P. Unfortunately, the disputing parties have so far not agreed. Furthermore, immediately after the Committee’s examination of the case, the Government again invited the disputing parties on 23 November and 6 December 2001 to seek a mutually satisfactory settlement. In those meetings, the Government acted as the facilitator and asked them to re?discuss the case peacefully.
11. 347. This meeting was held on 23 November 2001, chaired by the Minister of Manpower and Transmigration, and attended by the company’s owner, union officials of the SPMS, the president of the Federation of Independence Trade Union and the representatives of the Indonesian Employers’ Association (APINDO). Similar to the previous meetings, the Government asked both parties to reach the best solution. The spokesperson of the respective workers, however, stood by his complaint that all of the 79 workers must be reinstated which the employer kept rejecting. In principle, the employer agreed to negotiate all disputed issues peacefully through a deliberation to reach consensus and based on clear and proportional ways. The Government gave time to both parties in order to be able to reconsider and to negotiate as well.
12. 348. A follow-up meeting was held on 6 December 2001 and the management’s position, as well as the position of the workers’ representatives had not changed. In its communication dated 14 February 2002, the Government adds that the management has offered better severance pay for the dismissed workers and is ready to withdraw the summons which is being appealed by the workers in the Civic Court of Central Jakarta.
13. 349. The Government asserts that it is pursuing the improvement of all national labour laws and regulations, particularly those dealing with the protection of labour’s and employer’s rights. But, all parties, including the Government, are obliged to maintain public interest and/or order. Therefore, when all legal activities dealing with labour and employment are not limited, if those activities are assumed to disturb the public order, then the police and the judicial machinery should take appropriate action. The arrest and detention by the police of a number of workers of the Shangri-La Hotel are not violations against the legitimate exercise of trade union activities but merely meant to deal with criminal actions by some workers that caused damage to the hotel’s assets and disturbed public order.
14. 350. The Government tried to seek information either from the employer or the SPMS on the physical assault against Mr. Muhammen Zul Rachman (not Mr. Mohammed Zulharman), treasurer of the SPMS. On 7 January 2002, ministry officials met Mr. Halilintar Nurdin, according to whom the physical assault against Mr. Rachman happened outside the hotel complex (on the left side of the hotel gate). This case was processed by the Tanah Abang police sector which investigated the matter and submitted an investigation report to the Office of Prosecutors, Central Jakarta, on 6 March 2001. The State Court of Central Jakarta issued a decision on 3 May 2001 which mentioned that the suspect was found guilty and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment reduced by the detention period.
15. 351. Referring to the Committee’s request on clarification on the allegation of bribery surrounding the dismissal of Mr. Halilintar Nurdin, the Government asked Mr. Nurdin directly for clarification on 7 January 2001. In that meeting, Mr. Nurdin explained that such an accusation of bribery is untrue and a slander against him. He said that the decision to accept his dismissal was under a long and careful consideration and that he took his decision after he resigned as president of the SPMS. He pledged that he never received anything as a bribe dealing with his decision to accept the termination of his employment. He also explained that it is true that he withdrew his appeal to P4P and accepted the decision of P4D. Mr. Halilintar Nurdin said that he would be ready to give a direct explanation about this matter to the ILO.
16. 352. In relation to the Committee’s request concerning the observations of the national organizations of workers and employers involved in this dispute, the Government indicated that it submitted the Committee’s recommendation to these respective organizations for observations on 23 November 2001. To date, only the employers’ organization (APINDO) has replied by way of a copy of the communications it sent to the ILO concerning this case.
17. 353. In reply to the complainant’s communication of 15 October 2001 concerning the police interventions in the action taken by the 18 dismissed workers who, on 25 August 2000, claimed their rights to be re-employed, the Government asserts that this intervention was in conformity with Act No. 9 of 1998 on the freedom of expression before public. Based on this Act, any party who wishes to exercise peaceful demonstrations/actions shall convey a notification letter to the authorized institutions seven days prior to the starting date of such demonstrations/actions. The police, in accordance with the valid laws, must take security action, since the said action had not been reported as required. The SPMS sent its late notification to the Central Jakarta Police Resort on 27 August 2001 mentioning that they will exercise a peaceful demonstration in front of the Shangri-La Hotel in Jakarta from 1 to 21 September 2001 (copy of letter enclosed).
18. 354. In reply to the complainant’s allegation of the Minister’s statement concerning trade union rights violations, the Government contends that this was merely a public statement to take cognisance of the importance of improving the performance of the Government’s apparatus in creating sound industrial relations. The Government adds that it is fully aware of the difficulties encountered by the Government, workers and employers in this respect which present challenges that have to be faced and cannot be realized in a short time. Therefore, the Government welcomes and expects the involvement of the ILO through its activities in Indonesia to assist in the creation of sound industrial relations.
19. 355. In its communication dated 16 May 2002, the Government indicates that this case is being settled in accordance with the national laws and regulations in force and refers to the latest decision of the State Administrative Court on 26 March 2002. The Government adds that the Central Industrial Dispute Settlement Committee (P4P) has appealed this decision to the Supreme Court and that, while the Minister of Manpower and Transmigration may give an opinion, he does not have the right to interfere in the decision made by the P4P which is an independent judicial body. The Government also transmits a resignation letter of a Shangri-La Hotel employee dated 29 April 2002 indicating that all outstanding issues have been resolved.

D. Comments from a national

• employers’ organization
  356. 356 At the request of the Committee, the Employers’ Association of Indonesia (APINDO), an organization representing the employers in Indonesia, communicated the following information on 14 December 2001. In conjunction with the industrial dispute which occurred at the Shangri-La Hotel, Jakarta, APINDO was actively involved in finding amicable solutions to the dispute. The management of the Shangri-La Hotel, Jakarta, came to APINDO to report the dispute and APINDO is a member of the tripartite institutions for the resolution of labour disputes (P4D and P4P), which heard the matters of the dismissal of Mr. Halilintar Nurdin and the 579 employees of the Shangri-La Hotel.
  357. 357 Before the labour dispute, according to APINDO, there had been discussion between the management and the union on the service charge issue and pension plan questions with the aim of amending the current Collective Labour Agreement (CLA) at the union’s demand. As no agreement had been reached, an invitation was made to the Central Jakarta Manpower Office. Two persons who were not employees of the Shangri-La Hotel, Jakarta, were also present at these meetings. The attendance of those two persons created more demands on the part of the union which increased from two to 13 demands. Management’s refusal of the 13 demands subsequently caused the work stoppage coordinated by the union with the support of outsiders.
  358. 358 According to APINDO, the work stoppage did not follow the existing law and acted against the Collective Labour Agreement. Furthermore, the union also conducted actions of damaging the hotel’s assets in the form of deviations from work stoppage.
  359. 359 The management filed the request for employment termination of Mr. Halilintar Nurdin at the P4D (tribunal) because, inter alia, he posted posters describing a "bomb" in several places throughout the hotel. Another reason was the damaging of the good name of the hotel’s general manager. Such actions were contrary to the Collective Labour Agreement. The management also proceeded to file the dismissal notice of 579 workers at the tribunal (P4P) by reason of their illegal actions of putting the hotel in non-operation. The damaging of the good name of the hotel and work stoppage were against the prevailing laws and the existing CLA. The tribunals accepted all requests by management. Mr. Halilintar Nurdin, who accepted the P4D decision, admitted that there was an involvement of foreigners in this labour dispute, in particular the IUF, which contributed a fund of US$10,000.
  360. 360 Currently, 79 persons are appealing through the Administrative High Court the decision made by P4P (tribunal) and the management of the Shangri-La Hotel, Jakarta, has put forward a proposal to settle the dispute with the remaining 79 persons.

E. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 361. The Committee notes that the pending allegations in this case concern acts aimed at union busting on the part of the management of the Shangri-La Hotel, Jakarta, in particular through the dismissal of Mr. Halilintar Nurdin, chairperson of the Shangri-La Hotel Independent Workers’ Union (SPMS) and the intimidation of the subsequently dismissed workers for whom re-employment was conditioned on the signing of affidavits conveying their resignation from the SPMS. The allegations further refer to a subsequent break-up of a peaceful demonstration by 18 of the dismissed workers in front of the hotel on 25 August 2001 and a US$2 million compensation award made by the South Jakarta District Court in November 2001 against seven members and supporters of the Shangri-La Hotel Union for damages allegedly caused in connection with the protest demonstration on 22 December 2000.
2. 362. As concerns the question of union busting within the overall context of the large-scale dismissals at the Shangri-La Hotel following the protest action taken by SPMS members, the Committee would first recall that, when it previously examined this case in November 2001, it requested the Government to take steps to ensure the reinstatement of those dismissed workers from the Shangri-La Hotel who were still seeking their reinstatement [see 326th Report, paras. 356 and 362]. In reply to its query as to the number of those dismissed workers who are still seeking reinstatement, the Committee notes that the complainant has provided a list of 81 dismissed employees, while the Government refers to 79 employees, indicating that two of the employees on the complainant’s list, although not having accepted severance payments, had not continued their appeal of the dismissal.
3. 363. While duly noting the efforts made by the Government to find a peaceful solution to the case of those workers still seeking reinstatement, the Committee also notes that, on 26 March 2002, the State Administrative Court overturned the decision of the Central Committee for the Settlement of Industrial Disputes (P4P) which had approved these dismissals, apparently clearing the way for the reinstatement of at least those 81 workers dismissed during the dispute and who had not accepted compensation. Furthermore, according to a Jakarta press release, the judgement has, inter alia, found that the criminal action upon which the lay-offs were justified had not been proven. The Committee requests the Government to furnish a copy of the State Administrative Court’s judgement and, noting that the Hotel and the P4P have appealed this judgement to the Supreme Court, requests the Government to expedite these proceedings. If the Supreme Court judgement confirms the reinstatement order, the Committee requests the Government, in the light of this judgement and its previous recommendations on this point, to keep it informed of the measures taken to reinstate all those dismissed Shangri-La Hotel employees who still wish to return to their jobs.
4. 364. More generally, the Committee notes that, as concerns the overall allegation of union?busting tactics on the part of the employer, particularly the conditioning of resignation from the union in order to obtain reinstatement, the Government merely refers to the fact that appropriate evidence should be able to prove these allegations under Indonesian law. In this respect, the Committee nevertheless notes that the complainants have transmitted affidavits from workers stating that they were forced to sign papers indicating that they would resign from the union in order to obtain their reinstatement. The Committee recalls that Article 1(2)(a) of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) (ratified by Indonesia), sets out clearly that workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, in particular, in respect of acts calculated to make the employment of a worker subject to the condition that he shall not join a union or shall relinquish trade union membership. Where cases of alleged anti-union discrimination are involved, competent authorities dealing with labour issues should begin an inquiry immediately and take suitable measures to remedy any effects of anti-union discrimination brought to their attention [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 1994, para. 754]. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that these allegations are thoroughly investigated and if they prove to be true, to take the appropriate measures to remedy any effects of the anti-union discrimination for the workers and the union concerned and to ensure that such anti-union acts are not perpetrated in the future. The Government is requested to keep the Committee informed of the outcome of this investigation.
5. 365. As concerns its previous request to the Government to institute an independent judicial inquiry into the physical assault on Mr. Muhammad Zulharman (according to the Government, actually Mr. Zul Rachman), treasurer of the SPMS [see 326th Report, paras. 358 and 362] the Committee takes due note of the Government’s indication that an investigation was carried out by the Tanah Abang Police Sector, a report was submitted to the Prosecutor’s Office and the State Court of Central Jakarta condemned the person responsible for the assault to three months’ imprisonment. The Committee requests the Government to transmit a copy of the report of the investigation into the assault of Mr. Zulharman.
6. 366. As concerns the allegation of bribery surrounding the dismissal of Mr. Halilintar Nurdin, president of the SPMS, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that it contacted Mr. Nurdin, who has denied this allegation, adding that his decision to accept the dismissal was taken after long and careful consideration and after he resigned as president of the SPMS. The Committee further notes that the complainant has not provided any further information in respect of this matter.
7. 367. As concerns the dispersal of the peaceful protest on 25 August, the Committee notes that the complainant’s and the Government’s versions of the events significantly differ. On the one hand, the Government limits itself to indicating that the intervention was in conformity with national legislation as the protesters had not provided notification of their action as required by law. The complainant, on the other hand, states that the union had notified the authorities on 17 August, in accordance with legal requirements. Furthermore, the complainant alleges that the 18-person demonstration was dispersed by 60 fully armed police officers and that 14 of the demonstrators were taken to the police station. The Committee wishes to emphasize in this respect that measures depriving trade unionists of their freedom on grounds related to their trade union activity, even where they are merely summoned or questioned for a short period, constitute an obstacle to the exercise of trade union rights [see Digest, op. cit., para. 77]. While unable to pronounce itself in respect of the eventual non-compliance of this protest action with procedural requirements given the contradictory information provided in this respect, the Committee nevertheless considers that the proportion of the intervention and the brief detention of the unionists at the police station would appear to be excessive in light of the number of the demonstrators and the fact that the peaceful nature of the action has not been disputed. The Committee therefore requests the Government to investigate the precise circumstances surrounding the protest action which took place on 25 August 2001 on the sidewalk in front of the Shangri- La Hotel and to take the necessary measures to avoid recourse to excessive police interference in respect of the exercise of legitimate trade union activity.
8. 368. Finally, the Committee notes with regret that the Government has not provided any information in respect of the US$2 million compensation award granted by the South Jakarta District Court against six members of the Shangri-La Hotel union and an IUF representative. The Committee must recall in this respect that it has always recognized the right to strike by workers and their organizations as a legitimate means of defending their economic and social interests [see Digest, op. cit., para. 474]. The Committee further recalls that any assistance or support that an international trade union organization might provide in setting up, defending or developing national trade union organizations is a legitimate trade union activity, even when the trade union tendency does not correspond to the tendency or tendencies within the country [see Digest, op. cit., para. 629]. The Committee considers that the imposition of penalties for economic losses that might be linked to strike action and/or peaceful protest action constitutes a serious restriction of the right to strike and is further reinforced in this position by the State Administrative Court’s decision which apparently concluded that no criminal action was proven on the part of the protesting workers. Aware that this award has been appealed by the unionists who have been held liable, the Committee expresses the firm hope that its conclusions and recommendations will be taken into account in the review of the compensation award made by the South Jakarta District Court and requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the appeal.
9. 369. The Committee encourages the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance to facilitate the establishment of a sound industrial relations system in which collective labour disputes can be rapidly and effectively addressed at an early stage and to the satisfaction of all parties concerned.