Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 130, 1972

1. 27. This complaint was contained in a communication addressed to the ILO on 12 June 1971 by the Federation of Indonesian Moslem Trade Unions. On 23 July 1971 the complaint was forwarded to the Government for its observations, and, in a communication dated 8 November 1971, the Government sent its observations on the allegations. In a further communication dated 21 August 1971 the complainants supplied additional information regarding the complaint.
2. 28. Indonesia has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but it has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 29. In the communication dated 12 June 1971 the complainants enclosed a copy of a memorandum that they had, on 23 April 1971, addressed to the President of the Republic of Indonesia and to the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Republic containing allegations that the right to organise had been infringed by the Government in Indonesia. In particular, the complainants stated that the following trade unions were, " by all kinds of manipulations, including the use of authority ", forced to dissolve: trade unions of workers in the textile industry (Texin) at Tegal in Central Java, at the weaving factory " Djantra ", at Semarang and Tjilatjap (Central Java), at the textile factory " Kamadjaja ", Sukeradjo, Pasuruan (East Java), at the sugar factory " Sragi ", Pekalongan (Central Java), at the sugar factory " Pagotan ", Madiun (East Java), and also in other places. The complainants state that such events not only create unrest among the workers but also violate the Constitution of 1945, Convention No. 98 and Law No. 14 of 1969, regarding basic provisions on manpower.
2. 30. In its further communication dated 21 August 1971 the complainants stated that a representative of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, of which the complainant organisation is an affiliate, spent four weeks in Indonesia examining the trade union situation and, in particular, the complaint regarding infringement of trade union rights submitted to the ILO. The complainants added that, since the matter was now being entrusted to the ICFTU for settlement, they requested the Committee to leave the matter in abeyance.
3. 31. In its communication dated 5 November 1971 the Government states that it has consistently observed trade union rights as fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, article 28 of which specifically stipulates the right of freedom of association and of assembly. Furthermore, Labour Law No. 14 of 1969 lays down the right of workers to establish and join trade unions and the right of unions to enter into collective agreements with employers. In view of this, states the Government, it is categorically denied that there has been any infringement of trade union rights in Indonesia as alleged by the complainants.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 32. The Committee has taken note of the allegations formulated by the complainants and of the replies of the Government thereto. The Committee has also taken note of the request made by the complainants that the Committee leave the matter in abeyance since the complainants have entrusted the matter to the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions for settlement. No formal request has, on the other hand, been made to the Committee to treat the complaint as having been withdrawn.
2. 33. In this case the Committee considers that it is incumbent upon it, as in cases where a complaint is formally withdrawn, to have regard to the principle that the withdrawal by the organisation making the representation is not always proof that the representation is not, receivable or is not well founded. In implementing this principle the Committee considers that it is free to evaluate the reasons given to explain the request made by the complainants to postpone examination of the case, and to investigate whether these reasons appear sufficiently plausible to lead one to believe that the request was made in complete independence.
3. 34. Having regard to the fact that the complainants in the present case have not requested the withdrawal of the complaint and considering that the matter has been entrusted for settlement to an international trade union organisation having consultative status with the International Labour Organisation, the Committee is of the opinion that the decision taken by the complainants to request that the matter be left in abeyance was taken in full freedom and independence from any external interference.