Jakarta – Jakarta Industrial Relations Court decided Thursday that retail giant Sogo must reemploy 45 staff who were fired due to the closing of the chain's Plaza Indonesia branch in Central Jakarta early this year.
Presiding Judge Heru Pramono said the court could not accept the reason given by PT Panen Lestari Internusa (PLI), Sogo's owner, to dismiss the employees. "The court has decided that the forced majeure reason the company used to fire the employees was not right, so we rejected it," Heru said.
The judge said the rejection was also based on the fact that three of the dismissed employees were pregnant.
According to the 2003 Labor Law, a company can fire staff if it suffers losses for two years in a row, or under forced majeure, but not workers who are pregnant.
The Industrial Relations Court was established in 2006 to handle labor disputes.
The judge said Sogo should pay the employees' salaries dating back to March and also ordered the company to pay Rp 50,000 to each former employee per day until they receive the compensation owed them.
PT PLI's lawyer, Andi Abdurrahman Nawawi, said the company is considering an appeal. "We will discuss with the company whether we will appeal or not, because there are no vacancies in Sogo for them," Andi said.
He said the main reason Sogo fired the employees was because the leasing contract between Sogo and PT Plaza Indonesia Realty ended on Feb. 28.
Sogo, which was first established in Japan, has three branches in Jakarta and six branches in several other large cities in Indonesia. PT PLI also holds licenses for Debenhams department store, Kinokuniya book stores and Starbucks cafes.
Andi said Sogo in Plaza Indonesia formerly had 346 employees. The company transferred 214 to within PLI's other chains, while another 79 resigned. But the remaining 53 refused both resignation and transfer to any chain other than Sogo.
PT PLI then fired the 53 employees who last month filed a lawsuit regarding the dismissal. During the legal process, eight employees agreed to resign and receive a severance payment, while the remaining 45 insisted the company reemploy them at another Sogo branch in the city.
The Sogo Workers Union said the employees sought reemployment because they believed the company was healthy. They were also suspicious over five particular firings, insisting Sogo discriminated against the former employees because they wear head scarves.
"The company also fired many workers who almost reached early pension," said Melvin Z., a member of the union. Andi denied the accusations of discrimination.