Eyewitness, A case of alleged labor violations that occurred in the Labuansait area of Jalan Labuansait, South Kuta, Badung Regency, Bali, has now surfaced, exposing the dark side of the hospitality industry, often viewed as glamorous and promising. Behind the seemingly professional business premises, practices are said to be far from the principles of justice and worker protection.
A former employee, identified as R.M.C.A., who was interviewed on Thursday afternoon (April 3, 2026), revealed a series of events that he believes illustrated systemic chaos, psychological pressure, and alleged arbitrary actions by an Australian national identified as J.
In his statement, R.M.C.A. spoke not only as an aggrieved individual but also as a witness to the company’s internal dynamics, which he believes have deviated significantly from the principles of professionalism. She stated that this issue was not just an ordinary conflict, but a systematic pattern with a wide-ranging impact on many workers.
She began her explanation by outlining the business structure that underpins all operational activities. She explained that there are three main interconnected entities: PT Melali, the parent company, and two tenants operating within it: Ramana and CV Buda Dharma Jaya. While these three entities appear to have clear roles, in practice, they create overlapping authority.
She explained that PT Melali serves as the provider of all support systems, from HR and IT to security and housekeeping to marketing. Meanwhile, Rahmana and CV Buda Dharma Jaya manage the business operations, including the restaurant, retail, and other activities.
However, the fundamental problem is that all employees working at these two tenants are administratively under the control of one party, identified as Y., who holds all employment contracts.
“On paper, it looks neat, but in practice, it’s not. The person giving the orders can be different, and the person taking responsibility is also different. This is what makes the system chaotic,” explained R.M.C.A.
According to her, this situation creates a gray area in decision-making. When policies are implemented that are detrimental to employees, there is no clarity about who is responsible. This then paves the way for various unilateral policies that are deemed detrimental.
The situation began to change drastically with the arrival of a new HRD with the initials F. Without open communication or adequate socialization, several important policies were immediately changed. One of the most impactful was the elimination of meal allowances, which were previously part of employees’ fixed income.
“Meal allowances aren’t just extras. They’re already included in take-home pay. When they’re removed, our income clearly decreases,” she explained.
She explained that this policy not only has an economic impact but also a psychological one. Employees feel unappreciated and excluded from decisions concerning their well-being.
As a result, a significant wave of resignations quickly occurred. Many employees from various sectors, from the restaurant to service to housekeeping, chose to leave.
“This isn’t just a case of one or two people. It’s a large number. They left because they no longer trust management,” she said.
Ironically, the vacant positions were not immediately filled. Management instead took steps to redistribute work to remaining employees. This situation significantly increased the workload.
“Stewards were ordered to do housekeeping tasks. This is clearly outside their job description. This is not efficiency, this is forced labor,” she stressed.
According to her, this practice not only violates the principles of professionalism but also has the potential to reduce the quality of service provided to customers.
The conflict peaked in late February 2026, when a wave of layoffs began. R.M.C.A. claimed to be one of the first to be dismissed. However, the main focus was not only on the layoff decision itself, but also on how it was implemented.
He stated that she was fired directly by J. through verbal communication. There was no official letter at the time. However, some time later, a termination letter was issued with Y.’s signature.
“J. was the one who fired her, but Y. signed the letter. This is what is questionable. Structurally, we are not under J.,” she said.
She believes this situation indicates a mismatch between the organizational structure and practices on the ground. In fact, she suspected abuse of authority in the process.
Official documents state that the layoffs were due to performance and efficiency. However, according to R.M.C.A., there was never a transparent performance evaluation.
“If performance was the reason, there should have been indicators. But what was conveyed was actually about the company’s financial condition. That’s not the employee’s responsibility,” she said.
He even admitted to receiving a direct statement from J., which he believed reinforced his suspicion that the layoffs were not based on professional reasons.
“He said it wasn’t about performance, but rather internal conditions and pressure from above. This means this decision wasn’t objective,” she said.
Furthermore, R.M.C.A. also highlighted the lack of compliance with employee rights. He explained that employees with fixed-term employment contracts (PKWT) should receive compensation for the remaining contract period.
However, they only received one time salary.
“If there are five months left on the contract, they should be paid for five months. But this is only one month. This is a clear violation,” she stressed.
He stated that he was the only one who received full rights because she had legally challenged them. Other employees chose to remain silent because they didn’t understand their rights or were afraid.
“Many didn’t know what to do. They were pressured, and eventually they gave in,” she said.
Furthermore, he also revealed the psychological pressure she experienced while working. She described an intimidating atmosphere at internal meetings.
“Some people climbed onto tables, pointed fingers, and shouted. That’s not leadership, that’s intimidation,” she said.
The situation worsened after the layoffs. She mentioned the presence of unknown individuals guarding the worksite, which exacerbated the feeling of insecurity.
“There were people guarding every day. It wasn’t clear who they were. It made the atmosphere tense,” she said.
J.’s role in the entire conflict was highlighted. R.M.C.A. reported that J. had previously been suspended and all his personal belongings removed from the worksite.
However, shortly thereafter, he returned with officers and lawyers, acting as if he still had full authority.
“He came back and said, ‘I’m back.’ It was as if nothing had happened,” she said.
This, he said, created confusion within the company and exacerbated an already unstable situation.
Criticism was also directed at the HRD, identified as F., who was deemed to have failed to carry out his employee protection duties. R.M.C.A. said the communication tended to be condescending.
On one occasion, the HRD allegedly challenged an employee to report to the labor office.
“They told me to report it, and I’ll be laughed at. This is clearly intimidation,” she said.
Workplace accident cases also drew serious attention. He admitted he had to directly intervene to help an employee who had an accident due to the slow response from HR.
“HRD should be the one who responds promptly. But they’re slow. Even the initial costs have to be covered by coworkers,” he said.
According to him, this demonstrates the weakness of the company’s labor protection system.
With these incidents, R.M.C.A. believes the existing work system is unhealthy. He described a stressful work environment with no sense of security and no trust.
“People no longer work because it’s comfortable, but because they have to. This is the most dangerous thing,” she said.
She hopes this case will garner serious attention from the authorities, particularly in ensuring proper worker protection. “This isn’t just about me. It’s about many people. If left unchecked, there will be more victims,” she stressed.
