THE COST OF ASKING WHY: How Two Employees Were Punished Simply for Demanding Proof of Their Own Sanctions

When Engly Heryanto Ndaomanu and Rieke Dyah Astiwi asked a straightforward question: "What is the evidence against us?" PT Pegaunihan Technology Indonesia didn't answer in a way that was transparent, testable, and open to challenge by the employees. What followed, according to the sequence of events documented in this dispute, was a pattern of labels, pressure, career harm, and financial consequences that continues to cast a shadow over the case.

In most functional workplaces, an employee who receives a disciplinary sanction is entitled to know why about the evidence, the specific conduct and the rule that was broken.

At PT Pegaunihan Technology Indonesia, asking that question turned out to be the most dangerous thing that Engly Heryanto Ndaomanu and Rieke Dyah Astiwi ever did.

They did not protest violently. They did not sabotage operations. They asked: where is the proof? And for that, they were punished again. And again. And again.

What followed did not resemble a fair disciplinary process. It appeared, instead, as a pattern of escalating adverse responses that grew in step with how persistently the two employees continued to exercise their rights.

THE QUESTION THAT STARTED EVERYTHING

August 2025. Both employees received First and Final Warning Letters (SPPT). The accusation: violating company regulations regarding badge ID usage. The consequence: immediate.

Their first response was not defiance. It was a question, the most basic question any person facing punishment has a right to ask:

"What exactly did we do wrong? Show us the evidence."

That question was never answered with evidence in a manner the employees could properly examine, challenge, or verify. Instead, it was met with a label: bad attitude.

From that moment, a pattern emerged that would repeat itself across eight official forums over seven months. Every time the employees asked for proof, the company responded with a new form of punishment.

THE RETALIATION MATRIX: ACTION AND RESPONSE

WHAT EMPLOYEES DID	COMPANY'S RESPONSE
Asked: What is the evidence for our sanctions?	"Bad attitude" label applied immediately
Requested clarification on the legal basis of SPPT	Labeled as "aggressive rebels"
Attended Bipartite I with union representative (legal right)	Expelled from the official hearing room
Continued to formally protest the sanctions	The wider R&D department was reportedly subjected to consequences linked to the dispute
Raised concerns to management	Management allegedly began pressuring the supervisor after concerns were raised internally.
Sought accountability through legal channels	Accused of "spitting in the plate they eat from"
Attended mediation sessions with evidence	Sanctions were upheld although the employees say no adequate counter-proof was presented in the official sessions
Requested overseas training as planned	Taiwan training opportunity cancelled
Continued working while case was unresolved	KPI downgraded to C, despite being called "Best Employees" by HR at mediation
Awaited promised performance bonus	A six-month performance bonus was later withheld, with no clear explanation provided to the employees

The pattern is difficult to ignore. In every instance where the employees exercised a legal right, to representation, to evidence, to due process, the company’s response appears to have been punitive rather than explanatory.

"BAD ATTITUDE" - THE LABEL THAT REQUIRES NO EVIDENCE

The first retaliatory tool deployed was the label. When Engly and Rieke asked for the evidentiary basis of their sanctions, they were told their manner of asking constituted a "bad attitude."

This is a tactic with a specific function: it shifts the subject of scrutiny from the company's conduct to the employee's demeanor. It transforms a legitimate legal question into a character flaw. And crucially, it requires no evidence to apply.

You cannot cross-examine a label. You cannot demand documentation for an attitude. That is precisely why it is used.

The "bad attitude" label was followed by "aggressive rebels", an escalation that reframed two employees filing legal complaints into a threat requiring containment.

COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT: AN ENTIRE DEPARTMENT HELD ACCOUNTABLE

Perhaps the most extraordinary retaliation in this case was not directed at Engly and Rieke personally. It was directed at everyone around them. The entire Research and Development department was subjected to collective punishment, colleagues who had no involvement in the dispute, who had filed no complaints, who had asked no questions, found themselves caught in the consequences of two coworkers exercising their legal rights.

Collective punishment for the exercise of individual legal rights is not discipline. It is intimidation, designed to ensure that colleagues become instruments of social pressure against those who speak up.

The message sent to the R&D department was clear: if your colleagues keep asking questions, all of you will suffer. Stand down, or everyone pays.

EXPELLED FROM A HEARING THEY WERE LEGALLY ENTITLED TO ATTEND

Indonesian labor law explicitly guarantees employees the right to union representation in bipartite hearings. This is not a privilege. It is a statutory right.

At Bipartite I, Engly and Rieke arrived with an SPSI union representative, as workers commonly do in disputes of this kind. What followed, according to the employees’ account and the union’s position, was not a fair exchange but an attempt to proceed in a one-sided way.

According to the employees’ account, the company’s HR personnel: Riska Yuniarsih, Nora Morissa Sitompul, Ratih Joanda, and their manager, Narti, didn't engage the employees directly. Instead, HR allegedly instructed the union representative to remove the employees from the room and then attempted to present evidence in their absence.

The union refused.

The SPSI representative rejected the one-sided evidence and stated plainly that the meeting could not be considered valid without the employees present. A hearing conducted without the people it concerns is not a hearing. It is a briefing designed to manufacture consent.

HR didn't expel the union. HR expelled the employees from their own hearing, and then tried to use the union as a witness to a verdict the employees were never permitted to contest.

The union held the line.

The tactic failed at Bipartite I.

They tried it again.

THE SAME TACTIC. A DIFFERENT AUDIENCE. A DIFFERENT RESULT.

After Tripartite Session III, the company is alleged to have approached the mediator separately, outside the presence of the employees. In that separate approach, material was reportedly submitted without giving the other side a meaningful chance to respond or test it.

The real concern is not merely that one side spoke again. It is that material allegedly received outside the formal exchange appears to have shaped an official recommendation in a dispute that required procedural fairness.

If that sequence is accurate, the issue is not a minor irregularity but a serious due-process concern.

The mediator appears to have treated the matter differently. According to the chronology reviewed by the writer, the ex-parte material seems to have been accepted and later reflected in the mediator’s recommendation. If so, the issue is not a minor procedural defect but a serious due-process concern.

At Bipartite I, the union protected the employees from a one-sided process. At Disnaker, the process had no such protection. The same tactic that failed against the union succeeded against the state mediator.

The recommendation itself appears to acknowledge weaknesses in the proof presented during the official sessions. Yet the sanctions were still upheld, in circumstances where the employees say the decisive material was never properly tested, challenged, or disclosed to them during the process.

These procedural concerns are serious enough that they have been brought into a broader accountability process.

THE KPI THAT DEFIED REALITY

Of all the measures that followed, the KPI downgrade may be the hardest to explain away. In an official proceeding, the company’s own HR representative reportedly referred to Engly and Rieke as among the department’s best employees. Both later received KPI ratings of C.

In an official proceeding at the Batam Disnaker office, the company’s own HR representative reportedly referred to Engly and Rieke as among the department’s best employees. They were later given KPI ratings of C. That contradiction does not prove retaliation by itself, but it demands explanation..

Best employees. C rating. The same people. The same period. The only variable: they had the audacity to ask for evidence of their own sanctions.

A KPI rating is supposed to reflect performance. In this case, it appears to reflect something else entirely: the cost of non-compliance with an unjust sanction.

"SPITTING IN THE PLATE" - THE LANGUAGE OF LOYALTY ABOVE LAW

At various points in this dispute, the company framed the employees' legal complaints as a form of betrayal. The phrase used: accusing them of "spitting in the plate they eat from" is revealing.

Labor rights don't disappear because an employer frames their exercise as ingratitude. The law doesn't contain a loyalty exception.

But what makes it more than just rhetoric is the context in which it was delivered.

On October 27, 2025, the company’s HR team cancelled a scheduled Disnaker tripartite session at very short notice. Two days later, HR representatives appeared on TikTok with language framing the employees’ complaints as betrayal.

The issue wasn't the platform itself. It was the sequence: absence from a formal dispute-resolution forum, followed by public messaging that cast the workers’ legal complaints as disloyalty. In the context of an active labor dispute, that sequence carries the appearance of retaliation.

BatamInfo.co.id, covering the case, observed that the company's HR team appeared more professional on TikTok than in performing their actual function, noting that Human Resources, by definition, should be humane.

An HR department that cancels a government mediation with twenty minutes' notice and spends the next forty-eight hours dancing on social media has told you everything you need to know about how it views its legal obligations, and the people those obligations are meant to protect.

Labor rights do not disappear because an employer frames their exercise as ingratitude. The law does not contain a loyalty exception. And a TikTok video, however many views it receives, is not a substitute for showing up.

What made the episode striking wasn't the platform itself, but the sequence. A government-facilitated mediation was cancelled at very short notice. Shortly afterward, HR representatives appeared on TikTok with language that framed the employees’ complaints as betrayal.

The issue was not entertainment. The issue was message. In the middle of an active labor dispute, public mockery carries the appearance of retaliation.

THE TAIWAN TRAINING: A FUTURE CANCELLED

Before the dispute escalated, Rieke Dyah Astiwi had reportedly been scheduled for professional training in Taiwan. That opportunity was later cancelled as the sanctions took effect. No convincing explanation was given as to why a badge-related dispute should derail a development opportunity that had already been planned.

Whether viewed as punishment or pressure, the effect was clear: a future opportunity disappeared.

WHAT THIS PATTERN IS CALLED

There is a legal and organizational concept that closely fits the pattern alleged in this case: retaliation.

Retaliation generally refers to adverse action taken after an employee exercises a right: asking for evidence, seeking representation, filing a complaint, or pursuing mediation. That is why the sequence here matters as much as the individual acts themselves.

The adverse actions in this case include: disciplinary labels, collective punishment of colleagues, expulsion from a legal hearing, KPI manipulation, cancellation of professional opportunities, and revocation of earned compensation.

Each of these actions, taken individually, raises serious questions. Taken together, and viewed in sequence, they strongly suggest a retaliatory pattern that deserves accountability.

The question is no longer only: were the original sanctions justified? The question is now: what happens in this company to employees who dare to ask that question?

THE BROADER IMPLICATION

The workers are researchers. They are educated. They know which laws apply to their situation. They know which forums exist. They know how to document. Most workers don't.

In Batam's industrial zones, tens of thousands of workers face similar dynamics with far fewer resources. When they receive an unjust sanction, they do not ask for evidence. They have learned, from watching others, what asking costs.

The most effective suppression of labor rights is not the punishment of the one who speaks. It is ensuring that everyone watching learns not to.

This case left more than allegations behind. It left a documentary trail and a public shadow, reaching the records and the coverage of TribunBatam.id, BatamInfo.id, Batamnews.co.id, and other local media outlets.

But for every case that is documented, there are thousands that are not. Workers who received unjust sanctions, asked no questions, and lost everything in silence.

That silence is what PT Pegaunihan Technology Indonesia, and companies like it, depend on. It is time to make that silence more costly than speaking.

If workers cannot ask for proof of their own sanctions, what remains of due process in the workplace?

This article is based on the chronology, documents, and accounts reviewed by the writer. The company’s perspective should be publicly stated in full and tested against the documented sequence described here.