735 Former NHM Workers Demand Severance Pay, Newmont Discussed Due to Supreme Court Decision

Illustration: AI/OpenAI based on the visualization of the severance pay dispute of former PT Nusa Halmahera Mineral (NHM) workers.

JAKARTA - More than 735 former workers of PT Nusa Halmahera Mineral or NHM in the Gosowong gold mine, North Halmahera, North Maluku, have not received severance pay after mass layoffs. In fact, the Supreme Court has issued a final and binding ruling ordering the payment of their rights.

The workers, many of whom have worked at the Halmahera mine for more than two decades, are now urging the government to enforce the ruling. The demand has strengthened after Newmont Corporation issued a public statement that did not mention the Supreme Court ruling or the legal obligation to comply with it.

This dispute has gone through all legal channels. The Industrial Relations Court at the Ternate District Court won the workers through Decision Number 5/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2023/PN Tte. The decision was then upheld by the Supreme Court through Decision Number 734 K/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2024. This means that the decision is final and binding.

However, the official response from Newmont's Communications Director, Jessica Geurkink, did not mention the two rulings. The company instead stated that "all labor obligations arising from the divestment process are the responsibility of the current mine owner and operator." Newmont also said that the issue occurred before the company acquired Newcrest Mining.

Legal observers assessed that the statement was not sufficient legally because it did not touch on the main issue that had been decided by the Indonesian court.

Legal and human rights practitioner, Husendro, assessed that the disregard of the Supreme Court's decision was not justifiable.

"Ignoring the Supreme Court's decision cannot be tolerated because it undermines the credibility of the legal system. Pension is a fundamental right of workers protected by law. This right cannot be set aside for business reasons, let alone by pretending not to recognize the existence of court decisions," said Husendro in a written statement received in Jakarta, Monday, May 18.

Husendro also highlighted the principle of successor liability. In simple terms, this principle means that legal responsibility remains attached to a business even if there is a change in company ownership.

According to Husendro, Newcrest's acquisition by Newmont in 2023 has consequences for unresolved legal issues, including workers' claims.

Trisakti University public policy expert Trubus Rahardiansah expressed a similar view. According to him, the court's decisions that have been consistent from the lower level to the Supreme Court must be carried out.

"Foreign investors operating in Indonesia must comply with Indonesian law. This is not an option," said Trubus.

Chairman of the SPSI Workers Union of PT NHM, Rusli Gailea, said the total severance pay that has not been paid is estimated to be more than Rp. 100 billion. The funds are the rights of workers who have served for more than 20 years at the mine.

"We have gone through all the available legal channels, including cassation at the Supreme Court. The decision is there. The obligation is there. But until now the payment has not been made," said Rusli.

This dispute began with a change in ownership of PT NHM in 2020 after Newcrest Mining divested the Gosowong operation. In the Collective Labor Agreement or PKB 2018-2020 which was in force at that time, any change in company ownership requires the settlement of workers' rights, including severance pay.

The workers said the obligation had never been fulfilled.

In its public statement, Newmont reiterated its commitment to "responsible business practices, compliance with applicable laws and agreements, and fair treatment of workers across operations." However, the company did not mention the most relevant legal aspect of this dispute, namely the Supreme Court's cassation ruling.

Newmont also stated that it would "continue to take the steps it deems appropriate to protect the company's position and reputation." According to the workers' companions, the formulation emphasizes the protection of the company's image rather than the settlement of workers' rights.

Now, the former workers are asking the government, relevant ministries, and law enforcement agencies to ensure that the court's decision is carried out.

"If the Supreme Court's decision can be ignored, then where is the legal certainty for ordinary people?" said one of the workers' representatives. "We are not asking for special treatment. We just ask what has been decided to be our right by the highest court in this country." (ADV)