Effectiveness of Sela's Decision in Article 96 Law Number 2 of 2004 on the Resolution of Industrial Relations Disputes
Abstract
Disputes in the industrial sector have led to problems in settlement by judges and legal imbalances in law enforcers and society. The objective of this research was to discuss the effectiveness of the implementation of interlocutory decisions in the Gresik Class IA Industrial Relations Court, where there has been a mismatch between the substance, namely the law regarding interlocutory decisions, and the legal structure, namely law enforcers who in this case are judges. This was juridical-empirical research that used a case research approach and descriptive analysis was used. The results demonstrated that the ineffectiveness of the interlocutory decision in Article 96 of the PPHI Law at PHI Gresik was due, first, to the inconsistency of the legal sources used during the payment process of wages between the Constitutional Court and SEMA. Second, the judges felt fear and doubt in fulfilling the justice of the parties when passing the interlocutory decision and fulfilling the workers’ lawsuit; however, in the final decision, the employer ultimately won. Third, there was no explanation for the evidentiary requirements for the delivery of the interlocutory decision in the PPHI Law, which was different from the decision in the District Court on Civil Law. The problems with interlocutory decisions will lead to imperfect application of the law, in terms of the substance of the law, the practice of the law enforcers, and the culture of society.
Keywords: effectiveness, interlocutory verdict, industrial relations disputes
References
[1] J. Mubarok, “Peradilan Agama di Indonesia,” Bdg. Pustaka Bani Quraisy, 2004.
[2] - Domiri, “Analisis Tentang Sistem Peradilan Agama Di Indonesia,” J. Huk. Pembang., 2016, doi: 10.21143/jhp.vol46.no3.92.
[3] Omon. E. Suhartini. A. Y. Remen, “Penyelesaian Perselisihan Hubungan Industrial Pada PT. Haengnam Sejahtera Indonesia Di Tingkat Mediasi Pada Dinas Tenaga Kerja Kabupaten Bogor Omon,” J. Huk. Derechtsstaat, 2018.
[4] R. Indonesia, “Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 2 Tahun 2004 Tentang Penyelesaian Perselisihan Hubungan Industrial,” no. 1, 2004.
[5] R. Indonesia, “Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia No.13 Tahun 2003 tentang Ketenagakerjaan,” Undang-undang No.13 Tahun 2003, no. 1. pp. 1–34, 2003.
[6] D. L. Sonata, “Metode Penelitian Hukum Normatif Dan Empiris: Karakteristik Khas Dari Metode Meneliti Hukum,” FIAT JUSTISIA, 2015, doi: 10.25041/fiatjustisia.v8no1.283.
[7] J. Ibrahim, “Teori dan Metode Penelitian Hukum Normatif,” Bayu Media Malang, 2006.
[8] L. J. Moleong, Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif, cet. 2018.
[9] R. Abikusno, “Putusan Provisionil Dan Pengetrapannya Dalam Praktek Di Pengadilan Negeri,” J. Huk. Pembang., 1983, doi: 10.21143/jhp.vol13.no4.975.
[10] Mahkamah Konstitusi, “Putusan MK No.37/PUU-IX/2011,” Mkri, vol. 4, pp. 1–40, 2011.
[11] “SEMA-NO-3-2015-Rapat-Pleno-MA-2015.pdf.”
[12] “Akhir dari Problem Upah Proses dan Penerapan Kesalahan Berat Pasca Putusan MK – FARDALAW Farianto & Darmanto Law Firm.”
[13] “Benturan Tafsir Tentang Makna Pasal 155 Ayat (2) Uu Ketenagakerjaan.” .
[14] M. Agung, “Surat Edaran Mahkamah Agung Nomor 3 Tahun 2000,” J. Chem. Inf. Model., vol. 110, no. 9, pp. 1689–1699, 2017.
[15] Y. Pracelia and A. Yurikosari, “Analisis Putusan Sela Terhadap Permohonan Pembayaran Upah Proses Dalam Pengadilan Hubungan Industrial (Studi Putusan: Putusan Pengadilan Hubungan Industrial Nomor: 181/Pdt.Sus-Phi/2016/Pn.Bdg Jo Putusan Pengadilan Hubungan Industrial Nomor: 82/Pdt.Sus-Phi/2016/Pn.Bdg),” J. Huk. Adigama, 2019, doi: 10.24912/adigama.v2i1.5184.
[16] D. Ferricha, “Eksistensi Hukum Acara Perdata dalam Penyelesaian Perselisihan Hak tentang Upah pada Pekerja Honorer di Indonesia,” ADHAPER J. Huk. Acara Perdata, 2019, doi: 10.36913/jhaper.v4i2.79.
[17] G. Y. H. Bramantyo, “Syarat Pemberian Jaminan Pada Putusan Sert