The Tangerang Regency manpower office's written recommendation (Anjuran) of 14 July 2026 in Rahmat Wibowo's dispute with PT Nomnie Technologies Indonesia, recording his claim of Rp100 million in referral commissions for candidates the company says were all rejected

What this document is

A written recommendation (Anjuran) from the industrial relations mediator of the Tangerang Regency Manpower Office, numbered B/500.15.15.2/1178/VII/DISNAKER/2026 and dated Tangerang, 14 July 2026, addressed to the director of PT Nomnie Technologies Indonesia (Nomni AI, formerly Liven) and to Rahmat Wibowo. Under Article 13(2) of Law 2/2004, a mediator issues an Anjuran when mediation ends without agreement; before the recommendation, it records the statements of both parties.

Rahmat posted pages 1–4 on Threads on 1 November 2026. His address under his name is cut off, and the amounts of his salary, his opportunity cost and the compensation he demanded are blanked out. The pages after page 4, with the mediator’s considerations and the recommendation itself, have not been found.

What it says

A. The worker’s statement (Rahmat)

1. A verbal promise. The CEO, “Shaz” (presumably the co-CEO Shahrooz Chowdhury), told him verbally that “working three years at PT Nomnie Technologies Indonesia is equal to ten years at another company”. Relying on this, he turned down other job offers, which he counts as a direct financial loss (“opportunity cost”).
2. His own business. He disclosed his personal business and YouTube channel to management, which approved them in writing on condition that he did not use company assets or its brand.
3. Before his first day. Although not yet formally employed, he was added to the company’s internal channels, wrote an incident response report for priority issues, and referred more than 50 candidates, some of whom reached the final interview.
4. The contract. He signed an indefinite-term employment agreement (PKWTT) on 2 March 2026, for work from 1 April 2026, as a Senior DevOps Engineer with a three-month probation.
5. The termination. On 21 April 2026 the company “suddenly” ended his employment during probation, without prior warnings, restricted his access to its systems and made him delete his personal work data, which he says kept him from securing evidence of his referrals and contributions.
6. Notice and commission. The termination took effect on 28 April 2026, which he says gave him five working days’ notice instead of the seven required by Article 37(4) of Government Regulation 35/2021. He says the company also cancelled his referral commission for the 50+ candidates, a loss of Rp100,000,000, which he calls a tort.
7. Bipartite and mediation. His invitations to bipartite meetings on 4 and 8 May went unanswered, and the company did not attend on 8 May. He registered the dispute on 11 May. On 2 June 2026, through his lawyer, he sent the company a formal somasi demanding compensation. The clarification and bipartite meeting at the manpower office on 3 June ended in deadlock, with the company rejecting all his demands, and the mediation sessions of 10 and 24 June produced no agreement.
8. His claims. Breach of the notice rule; tort over the referral commission (Article 1365 of the Civil Code); and breach of contract over the CEO’s verbal promise (Articles 1338 and 1320), for the opportunity cost.
9. His request. That the mediator issue a written recommendation and the mediation minutes, as the administrative requirement for him to file a claim at the Industrial Relations Court.

B. The company’s statement

1. The employment agreement was signed on 2 March 2026, with work starting on 1 April 2026.
2. It set a three-month probation, during which either party may end the employment with written notice and without any compensation (Article 3(1)–(3)).
3. During the probation, the company found matters that led it to end the employment before the probation ended, in accordance with Article 3(3).
4. On 21 April 2026 it notified him that his employment would end on 28 April 2026, and the notice “was signed and well received by the worker”.
5. On 27 April 2026, before the termination took effect, it paid his proportional wages up to the end date (21 working days).
6. The termination complied with labour law, and the company has no further obligations to him.
7. All his demands, including the referral bonus, are “unfounded in law and merely made up by the worker”: recruiting was neither his authority nor his job, the company never asked him to find candidates, he did so of his own accord, and none of the candidates he recommended met the company’s criteria; all of them were rejected.
8. (Page 5, as quoted by Meta AI from the page he uploaded to it.) Point 9: “inti dari pengakhiran masa percobaan pekerja yaitu: perilaku public di masa lalu dan…” (“the core of ending the worker’s probation, namely: past public behaviour and…”). Point 10: the company asks the manpower office to reject his demands because he has already received his proportional wages for the probation.

Observations

1. Four weeks of work. Both sides agree that he signed on 2 March and started work on 1 April 2026, and the termination took effect on 28 April: four weeks, for which he was paid 21 working days. In his police complaint of 8 September he says he was employed “since 2 March 2026” (doc-20260908-002).
2. Rp100 million for rejected referrals. He claims Rp100 million in referral commissions for more than 50 candidates he says he referred before his first day. The company says it never asked him to recruit and rejected every candidate he put forward. He has boasted publicly of his “50+ referrals” and called the loss of their commission a betrayal (ev-20260604-003, ev-20260625-001).
3. A compliment as a contract, and offers never shown. He also claims damages for breach of contract because the CEO told him three years at the company would be worth ten years elsewhere, and asks to be compensated for the job offers he says he turned down on the strength of it. Rahmat keeps claiming that he had offers from other companies, here and in his posts about the dispute (ev-20260625-001, ev-20260728-042), but he has never named a company or shown an offer anywhere. Yet when Ibrahim Arief mentioned turning down a position at Meta London, Rahmat dismissed it as a logical fallacy and not evidence (ev-20260607-002), and later mocked him as the “Offering Letter King” (ev-20261017-001).
4. He signed the notice. He calls the termination “sudden” and the notice period too short; the company says he signed the notice and accepted it.
5. His somasi came first. By his own statement here, he sent the company a formal somasi through his lawyer on 2 June 2026, a month before the company’s lawyers sent theirs (doc-20260701-001). He later called his somasi a “message of peace” meant to make the company “repent” (ev-20261031-006).
6. The court he asked for, and the police instead. He asked for this recommendation as a requirement for taking the dispute to the Industrial Relations Court. By his own account, the dispute did not go on to that court (doc-20260908-002). He went to the police instead: his own report against Dinda Rhapsodya is dated the same day as this recommendation, 14 July 2026, and in September he filed a complaint naming the company, its HR manager and its lawyers.
7. The recommendation is missing. He posted both parties’ statements, including his own claims in full, but not the mediator’s considerations or the recommendation itself.
8. The reason: his past public behaviour. Page 5 has not been published, but when Rahmat uploaded it to Meta AI, it quoted the company’s statement that the core reason for ending his probation was his “past public behaviour” (ev-20261101-001). He has called his dismissal one “without a reason” (ev-20261031-002). After reading it, he did not address his own conduct: he threatened, as the “Satrio Piningit”, to bankrupt the company.

Pages still needed

Pages 5 and 6, assuming the letter has six pages: the rest of the company’s statement (page 5 is known only from Meta AI’s quotation of it), the mediator’s considerations and the recommendation itself.