Volume 4, Number 2, February 2023 e-ISSN: 2797-6068 and p-ISSN: 2777-0915
Email:
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
KEYWORDS closure of enterprises, conflicts of
industrial relations |
ABSTRACT The process of resolving industrial relations
disputes in Indonesia can basically be carried out through bipartite followed
by mediation or conciliation or arbitration and carried out with industrial
relations courts. This normative settlement providesaway
out with an orderly state.� Industrial
relations can arise due to several related matters such as: employment
agreements, positive laws and differences in interests.� The focus of the problem is whether the
definition of the concept of industrial relations conflict has been clearly
defined? Has the resolution of industrial relations conflicts been achieved?
Is the purpose of closing the company achieved according to its legal
objectives? Is the closure of the company to resolve industrial relations conflicts
achieved? What limitations are there in court decisions in examining and
resolving industrial relations disputes before or after the closure of a
company?� This study uses the
systematic study method of verdict.The
results showed� that the closure of the
company was not effective in resolving industrial relations conflicts |
INTRODUCTION
The process of resolving industrial relations disputes can basically be
carried out through bipartite followed by mediation or conciliation or arbitration
and continued with industrial relations courts (Achu, 2018). This normative settlement is a way out with an orderly state. Judging from
the juridical aspect, conflicts can actually arise due to several things
related to: employment agreements, positive laws and differences in interests.
The legal relationship between workers and employers begins with the making of
employment agreements both in writing and orally (Botha & Lephoto, 2017). Agreements that contain these rights and obligations then in their
implementation often arise problems that if there is no mutual understanding or
no understanding and if they cannot be resolved can eventually lead to disputes
between the parties. In English, the term used to mean a dispute or dispute is
conflict, or dispute (Darlington, 2016). Of course, between
companies and workers have different interests so that sometimes there are
Disputes over Rights and Interests and Termination of Employment as a result of
violations of labor material legal norms, then in formal juridical the parties
are not allowed to carry out acts of vigilantism (eigenrichting)
that have nuances of arbitrariness, but must be followed up through application
or enforcement (law enforcement) ) to formal legal norms commonly also
called procedural law as stipulated in Law Number 2 of 2004 concerning
Settlement of Disputes Employment relations between companies and workers (Sherly, Karsona, & Inayatillah, 2021).
������� The philosophy of industrial relations
dispute resolution is indeed very decisive in the outcome whether to find a
mutually beneficial settlement, mutual harm or harm to one of the fihaks and benefit the other. Some of these circumstances
are highly dependent on the dispute resolution mechanism.� Since the enactment of Law Number 22 of 1957,
concerning Settlement of Labor Disputes and Law Number 12 of 1964 concerning
Termination of Employment in Private Companies, the philosophical basis is the
same as Law Number 2 of 2004 concerning Settlement of Industrial Relations
Disputes, namely to protect the interests of workers / workers and employers /
employers in a balanced manner (Gourevitch, 2018). However, the reality is that in industrial society until now it has not
succeeded in achieving this philosophical value. Many people argue that this
shows that positive labor law has not functioned optimally and there are still
many weaknesses. Therefore, it is necessary to have continuous renewal /
guidance, until the condition where the rule of law has the ability to function
properly, which of course before the renewal / guidance is held first it is
necessary to know for sure concrete problems in terms of normative and in terms
of the reality of its application in society (Suherman, 2016).
If the settlement, especially on a bipartite basis, is deadlocked, it is
permissible by Indonesian law to strike workers and lock out for employers. The
same is true in Russia, which legalizes communal labor conflicts and strikes as
a tool to resolve industrial relations conflicts. This step can be said to be a
"forced" step in resolving industrial relations disputes. There are
negative and positive sides when workers and employers use these two methods.
But what is clear is that both of these methods pose quite severe risks (Gerasimova, 2014). �
��������� It should also be understood that
strikes are not always merely a question of rights or interests that arise as a
result of the establishment or will be formed of industrial relations, but can
also be politically and economically charged, reformist and revolutionary so
that strikes in this perspective will not be included in this discussion
because they will experience deviations in drawing conclusions (Hiscock, 2019).
������� For workers to use strike methods to
resolve disputes, there is a risk of termination, resulting in a halt in their
income. Of course this will affect the livelihoods of
workers and their families. If workers have no other income, then this step is
a gamble on their livelihood. On the other hand, strikes also have the
potential power to force employers to comply with their demands. Strikes and
slowdowns in the production process will have the potential to cause a lot of
losses (Hamark, 2022).
Strikes are able to stop the production process which has an effect on
stopping distribution and stopping production supplies to the market. On a
large scale as manufactured products the potential for lost profits also
becomes very large. While the slowdown in the production process despite the
detrimental effects of the product sales aspect is not as great as a total
strike, employers have to incur standard labor costs for less production (Narayanamurthy, Kumar Hota, Pati, & Dhal, 2015).
On the other hand, strikes must also be carried out carefully, especially
with regard to the validity of the strike itself. A strike that is carried out
not in accordance with the procedure whether it is carried out at the beginning
of the activity, in the middle or at the end of the activity will have an
impact on the invalidity of the activity with the risk of the worker being
considered absent, in other words, the worker defaults on their work agreement
with the company.
In a position like this, the company easily blames and sanctions workers.
Unlike when a strike is carried out in accordance with procedures, if the
industrial relations dispute continues, the company can take legal actions that
are balanced with strike activities, namely closing the company. In Indonesia,
these two types of industrial relations dispute settlements are regulated by
Law Number 13 of 2003 concerning Manpower.
The closure of the company is used in order to force workers to perform
workers in accordance with the conditions specified by the employer. The
closure can take the form of a "big bang" in which the company closes
its company for a long time until the worker agrees to the conditions offered
by the employer or in the form of "bargaining" where the closure of
the company is used as a tool to offset strikes or slowdowns in production from
workers (Briggs, 2004). ��
Regardless of how the two parties exercise the right of strike and closure
of the company, as long as it is carried out according to procedure, this
settlement is still within the corridors of legal order but if it goes out of
the provisions it will lead to potential irregularities and different legal
consequences as stated by Kola O. Odeku (Odeku, 2014).
��� The Employment Law of Article 149
paragraphs (1) to (5) provides for the closure of the company as follows:
(1) The
worker/laborer or trade union/trade union and the agency responsible for labor
who receives directly the notification of the closure of the company (lock out)
as referred to in Article 148 must provide proof of receipt by stating the day,
date, and time of receipt.
(2) Before and
during the lock out, the agency responsible for
employment is authorized to directly resolve the problems that caused the lock
out by bringing it together and negotiating it with the parties to the dispute.
(3) In the
event that the negotiations referred to in paragraph (2) result in an
agreement, a collective agreement shall be entered into by the parties and employees
of the agency responsible for employment as witnesses.
(4) In the
event that the negotiations referred to in paragraph (2) do not result in an
agreement, the employees of the agency responsible for employment immediately
submit the problem that caused the closure of the company (lock out) to the
industrial relations dispute resolution agency.
(5) If the negotiations do not result in an agreement as referred to in
paragraph (4), then on the basis of negotiations between the employer and the
trade union/trade union, the closure of the company (lock out) may be continued
or temporarily suspended or stopped altogether.
Such an arrangement as mentioned above seems to place the government as an
intermediary does not have a significant function in resolving industrial
relations disputes so that it should play a role from those stipulated in the
Act. This is where this problem arises.
The closure of the company in the context of the final resolution of the
industrial relations conflict is the right of the company as is the right of
the striking workers. Failure in the negotiations gives both parties the right
to exercise their last right.� This
construction shows that industrial relations conflicts initiate a settlement
that leads to the closure of the company or strike. In some cases
the closure of the company does not always begin with a conflict of industrial
relations. Quite often, it is precisely the closure of companies that cause
industrial relations conflicts due to various discrepancies in the views of
workers and employers.
Law Number 13 of 2003 Manpower (Manpower Law) Article 1 number 24 of Law
Number 13 of 2003 defines company closure (lock out) as an employer's
action to refuse workers / laborers in whole or in part to carry out work. The
closure of the company cannot be carried out by companies that serve the public
interest and/or types of activities that endanger the safety of human life,
including hospitals, clean water network services, telecommunications control
centers, electricity supply centers, oil and gas processing, and railways and
should not be carried out in retaliation for normative demands from
workers/laborers and/or trade unions/trade unions.
����� Technically, Article 148 of the
Manpower Law stipulates that companies are required to notify in writing to
workers/workers and/or trade unions/trade unions, as well as agencies
responsible for local labor at least 7 (seven) working days before the closure
of the company (lock out) is carried out by containing the time (day, date, and
time) of the start and end of the company closure (lock out) as well as the
reasons and causes of closing the company (lock out).
����� If after the closure of the negotiating
company Again experiences a deadlock then a juridical settlement becomes the
last resort.� At the practical level,
often the closure of the company is actually carried out first, causing
industrial relations conflicts. Especially disputes over termination of
employment and rights. This is because the closure of the company is always related
to workers. Fulfillment of workers' rights during work as well as the rights of
workers who have experienced termination of employment.
Company closures that have the
potential to cause industrial relations conflicts are often triggered by
violations of the closure mechanism and interpretation of different provisions
between companies and workers. After Law Number 11 of 2020 concerning Job
Creation. What is translated by Government Regulation Number 35 Thaun 2021 as the implementer of the Job Creation Law
actually increases this potential.� In
Chapter V of Termination of Employment article 36 letter b states that:
"The Company performs efficiency followed by the closure of the Company or
not followed by the closure of the Company due to the Company experiencing
losses". The article does not go into more detail about what the company's
losses are and what kind of efficiency measures. The blurring of this article
can have a bad impact on workers because employers can abuse this vague
article, for example, employers can carry out layoffs on the grounds of making
efficiencies caused by the company experiencing insignificant losses (Iriyanto & Nugroho, 2022).
The description above gives an
idea that the definition of closing a company without causing potential
industrial relations conflicts with various technical tools has not been able
to provide a concrete understanding so that the long road of the possibility of
industrial relations disputes after the closure of the company is still very
real.
�Looking at the cause and effect of closing a
company, it is impossible for a company to close without a cause, whether it is
directly related to workers (labor relations) or other causes that are
socioeconomically unprofitable. Therefore, from the beginning, the closure of
the company already has the potential for conflict, so the problem that arises
is how the company can be closed without causing industrial relations
conflicts.
There are two
dimensions that can be done simultaneously to minimize industrial relations
conflicts, namely by complying with existing provisions and making fair
provisions for the benefit of workers and companies that, of course, must
involve the government. In another dimension that is sociological in nature is
to reach the point of agreement between workers and companies (golden shake
hands).
In the dimension of compliance
with the rules, basically it will be able to be obeyed when the provisions have
good quality. The provision must at least have a good legal substance, legal
structure and legal culture. In addition, the problem of implementing laws and
regulations must also be free from obstacles to the formulation of sectoral
policies;� The policy formulation process
is less participatory;� Lack of
Understanding between policy and regulation;�
Regulations / laws and regulations that are multi-interpretation; potential
conflict; Overlap; disharmonious/out of sync; the absence of rules of its
execution; inconsistent ; and inflicting unnecessary burdens, both on the
target group and the affected group (Mardiah, Lovett, & Evanty, 2017)
In Indonesia, this
provision is not ideal. The manpower law has been tattered with so many
revisions by judicial review coupled with the Job Creation Law and its
derivative regulations that are far from expectations of ideal value. This
dimension is rather heavy if it is said that obedience will give a positive
value to the labor relationship between the worker and the company.
Another thing that can still be
taken even though it must be combined with existing provisions is to establish
a balance between workers and companies. It is not perfect but in an atmosphere
of mutual need, workers and companies can tolerate each other's interests. This
tolerance is like a pendulum that dynamically moves according to the
conditions. The ability to create this equilibrium atmosphere that will provide
accommodation for the interests of both parties can be fulfilled.
The formulation of
the interaction between companies and workers as stated by Harsono
and Ambaretno formulates that workers' perceptions of
understanding laws and regulations in the field of labor have a positive and
significant influence on the harmonization of partnership relations between
workers and employers. The perception of workers about the welfare of workers
has a positive and significant influence on the harmonization of partnership
relations between workers and employers. Workers' perceptions of the existence
of trade unions/ trade unions, have a positive but nevertheless insignificant
influence on the harmonization of partnership relations between workers and
employers. This formulation should be in a position of good regulatory
substance and a good level of welfare as well (Harsono & Ambarepto, 2006).
RESEARCH METHOD
1.
Data collection
The electronic
database uses the Directory of Verdicts. Publication of Electronic Documents of
Decisions of all Courts in Indonesia using the keywords "company
closure", "rights dispute", "interest dispute" and
"termination dispute".
The mining process of
the initial verdict was found to be 122 which were carried out in March 2022
verdicts.
2.
Inclusion and
exclusion criteria
The initial data of
122 decisions were classified through the inclusion and exclusion process
(table 1) and the decisions were selected based on inclusion and exclusion
criteria and then selected based on the quality of the data that had been
determined (table 2)
Table 1
Number |
Inclusion |
1 |
The ruling has
permanent legal force |
2 |
Verdict issued in
the span of 2015-2020 |
3 |
The decision is at the
level of the Industrial Relations Court or the Supreme Court |
4 |
The verdict relates
to the closure of the company |
5 |
Beginning or ending
with the resolution of industrial relations conflicts |
number |
Exclusion |
1 |
The ruling has not
been of permanent legal force |
2 |
Verdicts issued
before 2015 and after 2020 |
3 |
Settlement is at
the bipartite or mediation or conciliation or arbitration level� |
4 |
The ruling has
nothing to do with the closure of the company |
5 |
Not Beginning or
ending with the resolution of industrial relations conflicts |
3.
Quality criteria
Decisions that are
included in the inclusion criteria will be reviewed in such a way that the
stage of meeting the quality criteria directed at the concept of closing the
company, the form of completion of the industrial relations agreement, the
achievement of the objectives of closing the company, the quality criteria are
made in the form of a list of questions in the following table:
Table 2
Number |
question |
Is the closure of a company defined by the entrepreneur in accordance
with the Act?������ |
|
2 |
What is the form of resolving industrial relations conflicts after the� closure of� the company? |
3 |
Is the implementation of the closure of the company achieved? |
4 |
Is the closure of the company carried out to resolve the industrial
relations conflict achieved? |
5 |
�What limitations
are there in court decisions in examining and resolving industrial relations
disputes before or after the closure of a company? |
In each of the judgments
will be presented five quality criteria questions in which the answers obtained
from the judgment will be coded yes (1 point), no (0 points and partial (0.5
points). The verdict will be judged on the basis of the content corresponding
to the question. Decisions classified as final data must have a minimum score
of 7.5 points. The final verdict is evaluated with questions according to the
quality criteria as set out in table 2. In this final classification of the
remaining 122 rulings 19 rulings were selected to answer the research
questions. This data extraction procedure is represented through the PRISMA
stream by modifying, primarily, of the object of study. In PRISMA extraction,
the main study material is a previous study that has been determined by
criteria with a predetermined theme, while in this study the object of analysis
is the decision of the industrial relations court which has permanent legal
force (Page
et al., 2021).
4.
PRISMA Model Analysis
Results
Directory of
decisions of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia (n=122)
Identification Records identified from*: Databases
(n=122 ) Records removed before screening: Duplicate
records removed (n= 0)
����������������������������������������
Studies
included in review� (Studies included in
qualitative synthesis). (n = 19) Included Eligibility Records screened (n=122) Records excluded �(n=60 ) Decision �assessed for eligibility (n =62 ) excludedrecords excluded: Scored < 7.5 (n=43) Screening
The closure of the company in the context of the final
resolution of the industrial relations conflict is the right of the company as
is the right of the striking workers. Failure in the negotiations gives both
parties the right to exercise their last right.�
This construction shows that industrial relations conflicts initiate a
settlement that leads to the closure of the company or strike. In some cases
the closure of the company does not always begin with a conflict of industrial
relations. Quite often, it is precisely the closure of companies that cause
industrial relations conflicts due to various discrepancies in the views of
workers and employers.
Law Number 13 of 2003 Manpower (Manpower Law)Article 1
number 24 of Law Number 13 of 2003 defines company closure (lock out) as an
employer's action to refuse workers / laborers in whole or in part to carry out
work. The closure of the company cannot be carried out by companies that serve
the public interest and/or types of activities that endanger the safety of
human life, including hospitals, clean water network services,
telecommunications control centers, electricity supply centers, oil and gas
processing, and railways and should not be carried out in retaliation for
normative demands from workers/laborers and/or trade unions/trade unions.
Technically, Article 148 of the Undang-U ndang
ketenagakerjaan stipulates that the company must notify in writing to the
worker/laborer and/or trade union/trade union, as well as the agency
responsible for local labor at least 7 (seven) working days before the closure
of the company (lock out) is carried out By containing the time (day, date, and
time) of the start and end of the company closure (lock out) as well as the
reasons and� Causes of closing the
company (lock out).
If after the closure of the negotiating company Again
experiences a deadlock then a juridical settlement becomes the last
resort.� At the practical level, often
the closure of the company is actually carried out first, causing industrial
relations conflicts. Especially disputes over termination of employment and
rights. This is because the closure of the company is always related to
workers. Fulfillment of workers' rights during work as well as the rights of
workers who have experienced termination of employment.
Company closures that have the potential to cause
industrial relations conflicts are often triggered by violations of the closure
mechanism and interpretation of different provisions between companies and
workers. After Law Number 11 of 2020 concerning Job Creation. What is
translated by Government Regulation Number 35 Thaun 2021 as the implementer of
the Job Creation Law actually increases this potential.� In Chapter V of Termination of Employment
article 36 letter b states that: "The Company performs efficiency followed
by the closure of the Company or not followed by the closure of the Company due
to the Company experiencing losses". The article does not go into more
detail about what the company's losses are and what kind of efficiency
measures. The blurring of this article can have a bad impact on workers because
employers can abuse this vague article, for example, employers can carry out
layoffs on the grounds of making efficiencies caused by the company
experiencing insignificant losses.
The description above gives an idea that the
definition of closing a company without causing potential industrial relations
conflicts with various technical tools has not been able to provide a concrete
understanding so that the long road of the possibility of industrial relations
disputes after the closure of the company is still very real.
Looking at the cause and effect of closing a company,
it is impossible for a company to close without a cause, whether it is directly
related to workers (labor relations) or other causes that are socioeconomically
unprofitable. Therefore, from the beginning, the closure of the company already
has the potential for conflict, so the problem that arises is how the company
can be closed without causing industrial relations conflicts.
There are two dimensions that can be done
simultaneously to minimize industrial relations conflicts, namely by complying
with existing provisions and making fair provisions for the benefit of workers
and companies that, of course, must involve the government. In another
dimension that is sociological in nature is to reach the point of agreement
between workers and companies (golden shake hands).
� In the
dimension of compliance with the rules, basically it will be able to be obeyed
when the provisions have good quality. The provision must at least have a good
legal substance, legal structure and legal culture. In addition, the problem of
implementing laws and regulations must also be free from obstacles to the
formulation of sectoral policies; The policy formulation process is less
participatory;� Lack of Understanding
between policy and regulation;�
Regulations / laws and regulations that are multi-interpretation;
potential conflict; Overlap;
disharmonious/out of sync; the absence of rules of its execution; inconsistent
; and inflicting unnecessary burdens, both on the target group and the affected
group
In Indonesia, this provision is not ideal. The
manpower law has been tattered with so many revisions by judicial review
coupled with the Job Creation Law and its derivative regulations that are far
from expectations of ideal value. This dimension is rather heavy if it is said
that obedience will give a positive value to the labor relationship between the
worker and the company .�
Another thing that can still be taken even though it
must be combined with existing provisions is to establish a balance between
workers and companies. It is not perfect but in an atmosphere of mutual need,
workers and companies can tolerate each other's interests. This tolerance is
like a pendulum that dynamically moves according to the conditions. The ability
to create this equilibrium atmosphere that will provide accommodation for the
interests of both parties can be fulfilled.
The formulation of the interaction between companies
and workers as stated by Harsono and Ambaretno formulates that workers'
perceptions of understanding laws and regulations in the field of labor have a
positive and significant influence on the harmonization of partnership
relations between workers and employers. The perception of workers about the
welfare of workers has a positive and significant influence on the harmonization
of partnership relations between workers and employers . Workers' perceptions
of the existence of trade unions/ trade unions, have a positive but
nevertheless insignificant influence on the harmonization of partnership
relations between workers and employers. This formulation should be in a
position of good regulatory substance and a good level of welfare as well.
The
results of the study of the�
analyzed� verdicts give the� following picture:
Defining
Company closure
This study�
shows that the� penvoy that
defines the closure of the� company� clearly in accordance with Article 148 of Law
Number 13 of 2003 there are 16 judgments, while the decisions�� that�
are not decif the closure of the company clearly in accordance with
Article 148 of Law Number 13 of 2003 there�
is 1 decision and there are 2�
judgments that do not define� the� closure of�
the� company
The table above gives an idea that the� understanding and application of
entrepreneurs or companies about closing a company is quite good.� One case��
misrepresented� it because in the
judgment of Nomor: 139/G/2014/PHI/PN.BDG the company� was judged by the� judge to have closed� the company in an illegal way, i.e. there was
no written announcement� that� addressed to the Plaintiffs (workers),� this is not in accordance with the provisions
of Article 148 paragraph 1, 2 of Law Number 13 of 2003 concerning Manpower.
Two cases that do not provide a definition are due
to� termination of�� employment on the� grounds of closing the company� because��
the company was terminated by� its
corporate partner, PT Holcim,� while the� fact is that the company is still running (judgment
No. 130/Rev.Sus-PHI/2017/PN.Bdg and No.
131/Rev. Sus-PHI/2017/PN.Bdg). This ruling� opens up the fact that� the definition of� the closure of a� company can also be forced in a certain
situation to protect its interests and even more� inappropriately� making the action seem as if the company� is closed but in reality the� company is still� operating. �The rationale�
is, that� in a� situation of labor conflict that� cannot�
be� resolved then, for
entrepreneurs, the closure of the�
company is a way out� to� be able to�
resolve� that conflict.
In a situation of�
industrial relations conflict,�
the closure of the company that is carried out can only be proved
legally formally in Court� and to reach a
verdict of� legal force�� it still takes time and�� costs�
so that for workers who do not�
have time and costs will be� the
"losing" party not because of the
legal settlement but because of the circumstances sociological.
� For employers
this method is an efficient way, but nevertheless When the worker has the� time and cost to settle legally then
When� the closure of the company is�� declared undefined�� in the�
sense that it is inconsistent�
with the� laws and regulations
then the Act becomes� futile.
�� 2.What is the form of resolving industrial
relations conflicts after the closure of the company?
A lot� of� background happened before the� closure of the company.� The emergence of labor conflicts is the main
cause.� In the applicable regulations in
Indonesia, the conflict can be in�
the� form of� conflicts of�
interest,� conflicts of rights
and� conflicts of termination of employment.� But not all labor conflicts are always the
cause. Other socioeconomic conflicts have the potential to give rise to that
Act. Acts� of violence for example, have
caused� the Maruti� company to close the company. The closure of the� company has led to several consequences and
the most frequent is the termination of employment. Especially if the� closure of the company is carried out
permanently.
The logical consequences of closing a company that
ends with termination in� Indonesian� regulations give rise to workers'
rights in the� form of unpaid wages and
severance pay due to termination work. Some of the� factors that cause labor conflicts are wages
and other workers' rights that are not paid in accordance with regulations,
secondly,�� deviant� termination procedures� and inappropriate amount of severance pay
.� This often� happens because there is a� view of the�
position of the relationship�
between the� company and the
worker whether it is subordination or collaboration. Subordination
relationships� will� tend not to�
respect� work agreements that have
been made, especially parties who feel higher otherwise collaboration
relationships will create an atmosphere of mutual respect� between�
the company and the workers.
The transformation of�
industrial� relations from
subordination to collaboration does require a lot of energy so that� the�
state must be involved, although it is very likely that� state�
involvement is always driven by factors�
other major such as politics and economics, however creating
collaboration is possible. Creating regulations for the� settlement of industrial relations conflicts
that� are simple, fast and� low cost in artinwhich is actually� very necessary so that� industrial�
relations and their dynamics become more well.�
These two things�
happen most often� and� of� all
the rulings studied by the� estuary of
labor conflict are on those two factors. Most of them are labor conflicts� that�
arise as� a result of� company closures and labor conflicts that
arise are the fulfillment�� of rights as
workers� and rights as workers who are
terminated from their work.��
3.Is the implementation of the closure of the company����������� achieved as the legal
objectives?
Of the Nineteen cases there� were three judgments stating� that there was no closure of the
company.� Judgment number:
139/G/2014/PHI/PN.BDG stated that the company�
in carrying out Lock Out (closing the�
company) had violated the provisions of Article 146 and Article 148 of
Law No.13 of 2003.Second judgment No.130/Rev. Sus-PHI/2017/PN.Bdg.� and No. 131/Rev. Sus-PHI/2017/PN.Bdg. that the closure of the company is not /
has not been implemented as stipulated in Law No. 13 of 2003 concerning
manpower article 146 paragraph (3) and article 148 paragraph (1), (2).
The cause of the failure to close the company� from the�
three rulings is� because� it was�
not procedural so that the definition of company closure even though in
general is to� stop� the company's operations� both�
permanently and temporarily but in practice, due to the� legal politics� of the law, it has different� procedures from� state to state� with The purpose of the failure
to close the company in this
study is in the context of Indonesianness. It is very
likely that if conditions occur in other countries with different provisions or
procedures it can be concluded that the company is successful.
It is even more important� to study that company closures in this
data� give an idea that the� understanding and application of company closures
is adequate despite the fact that they are still resolved�� in court. The phenomenal thing is that
When� the procedure for closing the� company has been carried out but, on the
basis, the incoming case, is not balanced with the fulfillment of� workers'�
rights either�� in the form� of�
wages or� issues of legality of
termination and� workers' rights
resulting from termination. This made the labor problem drag on until the
courts. In peng a dilanlah that precisely the
settlement� requires a long time and in
some cases tends to be slow while� a
quick settlement (bottle neck) is needed.
From the�
workers' side,� a protracted
settlement will� consume the� energy of�
those who do have little, so they will give up with atindakan company.
In some cases the regulatory violations that companies commit are committed
solely in their economic interests which workers expect not to pursue legal
remedies until they reach the courts.
�� Is the
closure of the company carried out to resolve the industrial relations conflict
achieved?
Company closures and�
strikes are essentially the� last
resort in� resolving labor conflicts,
but� on the� other hand can be used in order for� other�
purposes. Poilitic, economic conditions and other� factors outside of labor conflicts are
also� very likely reasons to� be used.�
Based on the��
data� of�� the judgments published by the court, 19
judgments are the resolution of conflicts arising from the closure of the
company while none of the� judgments are
the�� resolution of labor conflicts that
give rise to the act of closing the company. This data shows that the
resolution of labor conflicts is not��
used by� closing the� company, in the� sense that labor� conflicts do not� reach the level of not being resolved.
It also shows the�
similarity of� corporate
tendencies in the world that there are very few company closures. Business
continuity considerations are considered in closing the company after the company
invests a lot of capital.
The verdict data in this study has one decision,
namely in decision number: 139/G/2014/PHI/PN. BDG where there is a company
argument stating that the Workers went on illegal strikes on September 28, 2012
and October 4, 2012 which were not in accordance with Article 140 of Law No.13
of 2003 and because the strike was not in accordance with the provisions of the
Article, the company decided on the basic right granted by the Law to take Lock
Out action. Although in court this argument was not proven, the Company made a
legal construction that it was as if the closure of the company was carried out
due to a labor conflict.
From� the court
ruling, there was also� no strike
action� found as a result of labor
conflicts and was used to resolve conflicts.�
Workers realize that strikes� are
a� basic right and are used as a last
resort. Although as a basic right, strike action�� also has a high risk for workers. Strikes� become a dilemma for workers� themselves, especially related to the
aftermath of strikes that do not meet procedures. The heaviest risk� is termination which means it� will concern the future of their well-being. Workers
who have high skills� do have� a high bargaining position when going on
strike but for workers who do not� have
skills� it will be easy for the company
to�� looking for a replacement.
The main causes of the closure of the enterprise are
not used to resolve labor conflicts until the courts. First, the conflict has
been resolved through bipartite or courts. Settlement with� this pattern can be seen that from� all industrial� relations�
cases� from 2013 to 2021� there were only 19 cases of company closures
involving conflicts of relations��
Industrial and� of the� 19 cases�
have a pattern of company closures that cause� labor conflicts, not��� the other way around.�
5.What
limitations� are there in� court decisions in examining and resolving
industrial� relations disputes before or
after the� closure of the company?
There are�
fundamental differences in� the
resolution of labor conflicts� that begin
with the closure of the company, end with the�
closure of the company� and� the resolution of labor conflicts without any
closure� of the� company.
Thelabor policy that begins with the closure of the
company� stems from the� closure of the company� itself.�
This action� raises several
problems, namely first, is the closure of the company carried out in accordance
with regulations?� Secondly, have
the� rights of workers before and after
the closure of the company been fulfilled?��
Third, if� it gives rise to
termination, has the termination procedure
been fulfilled? fourth, if the� termination is in accordance with� the regulations whether the worker's ha katas
who was terminated (severance) has been fulfilled?
In labor conflicts that
end with the closure
of the company separately or
simultaneously, it originates in�
conflicts of� rights, conflicts of
interest� and conflicts of termination of
employment. These conflicts could
not be resolved sociologically, triggering� the company's closure action� . When the company is closed, the same
problem will arise with the first pattern of closing the company.
Labor conflicts where there is no company closure are
relatively simpler in resolving them
because the problem is not coupled with the issue of legality and� the�
procedure for closing the company. If the� issue of legality has� been met by�
the company, the most important thing to�
pay attention to� is whether the
closure of the� company has paid
attention to� the approval and
workers'� rights of workers. The
court's ruling� on The Putco and Sun
International Case in� South Africa� taught a�
lesson that the� most important
thing in carrying out the� closure� of the company� is the achievement� of� a
balance of� interests between companies
and workers.�
If the interests between the company and the worker
are not balanced and not negotiated to reach�
a point of balance then what happens is precisely the� power struggle between the� interests of�
the� worker� and�
the company through strikes and company closures .� It is also worth noting that if the
regulations do not regulate� the� standard scope of� the right to�
strike and close the company and the bargaining system, the� closure�
of� the company will be a� a conflict�
that is intertwined.
The three patterns of�
labor conflicts in Indonesian�
regulation will eventually boil down to courts with types of� conflicts of interest, rights and termination
of� employment.��� There is no�
specific type of labor conflict�
called� a company closure conflict
or strike� conflict. There is no type of
labor� conflict about the refusal of� company closures by workers or the refusal
of�� strikes by companies.��
The Employment Law Article 149 paragraphs (1) to (5)
provide for government interference in resolving conflicts due to the closure
of companies but when it is deadlocked, it is finally handed over to the
authorized institution to resolve the conflict.�
A settlement in a judge's court will look at the legal side of the
company's closing action, but not look at the sociological side.
�These two
authoritative Institutions� each have
weaknesses.� The government has the
authority to� resolve� sociologically so that� it can actually solve to the root of the problem
but unfortunately it does not have the authority to decide so that in the end
it returned to court.� Meanwhile, the
court will� always look at the legal
aspect�� only so that the� court's decision will resolve the� conflict from the�� legal aspect.� As a result,�
this conflict became incomplete.
CONCLUSION
The closure of the company has
legality and is carried out procedurally.�
The result is that there is a termination of employment with the� company's obligation to pay for the� rights of workers who are terminated.� In some small cases the closure of the
company is carried out in violation of regulations. This violation of�� regulations actually resulted in the closure
of the company failing and the rights of workers who were not paid off.
The closure of the company that
gives rise to labor conflicts revolves around the legality of termination and
compensation. At the close of the company in accordance with the regulations,
labor conflicts are resolved by the ratification of termination of employment
along with payment of rights during employment and the termination of workers.
The closure of the company meets
the regulations. A small percentage that does not meet the regulations is
caused by the desire of companies that are unwilling to give workers rights
both in employment relations and workers are disconnected.
The closure of the company is not
used to resolve industrial relations conflicts, on the contrary, the closure of
the company causes� labor conflicts. The
closure of companies that are not preceded by labor conflicts is largely
motivated by social, economic and political factors.�
�
Labor conflicts that begin or end with the� closure of a company� basically��
extend the� settlement while the
resolution of labor conflicts without closing the� company�
is simpler. The limitations of resolving labor conflicts at the close of
the company tend to be juridical but unable to reach other aspects so that they
are unable to resolve conflicts completely. In the prevailing regulations,
governments that have the opportunity to complete settlements are� actually required to settle in court if
differences of interest� are not found.
REFERENCES
Achu, Fonja Julius.
(2018). Settlement Of Labour
Disputes Under Cameroonian Labour Law. African Journal Of International And
Comparative Law, 26(3), 407�425.
Botha, Monray Marsellus, & Lephoto, Motsoane. (2017). An Employer�s Recourse To Lock-Out And Replacement Labour: An Evaluation
Of Recent Case Law. Potchefstroom Elec. Lj, 20, 1.
Briggs, Chris. (2004). Lockout Law In
Australia: Into The Mainstream? Citeseer.
Darlington, Ralph. (2016). British Labour
Movement Solidarity In The 1913-14 Dublin Lockout. Labor History, 57(4),
504�525.
Gerasimova, Elena. (2014).
The Resolution Of Collective Labour Disputes And The Realization Of The Right
To Strike In Russia. Labour Law In Russia: Recent Developments And New
Challenges, (6), 259�288.
Gourevitch, Alex. (2018).
The Right To Strike: A Radical View. American Political Science Review, 112(4),
905�917.
Hamark, Jesper. (2022). Strikes And
Lockouts: The Need To Separate Labour Conflicts. Economic And Industrial
Democracy, 43(4), 1891�1910.
Harsono, Mugi, & Ambarepto, Agus. (2006). Analisis Beberapa Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Harmonisasi Hubungan
Kemitraan Antara Pekerja Dan Pengusaha. Jurnal Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia,
1(1).
Hiscock, Hugh. (2019). The Afterlives
Of The Algerian War In Contemporary France: Literary Narrativesand Contested
Spaces Of Memory. The University Of Liverpool (United Kingdom).
Iriyanto, Erik, & Nugroho, Arinto. (2022). Analisis Yuridis Terkait Pemutusan Hubungan Kerja Karena Efisiensi Tidak
Diikuti Dengan Penutupan Perusahaan Yang Disebabkan Perusahaan Mengalami
Kerugian. Novum: Jurnal Hukum, 28�39.
Mardiah, Andri N. R., Lovett, Jon C., & Evanty, Nukila. (2017). Toward Integrated And Inclusive Disaster Risk Reduction In Indonesia:
Review Of Regulatory Frameworks And Institutional Networks. Disaster Risk
Reduction In Indonesia: Progress, Challenges, And Issues, 57�84.
Narayanamurthy, Gopalakrishnan, Kumar Hota, Pradeep, Pati, Surya Prakash,
& Dhal, Manoranjan. (2015).
Maruti Manesar Lockout: The Flip Side Of People Management. Emerald Emerging
Markets Case Studies, 5(2), 1�14.
Odeku, Kola O. (2014). An Overview Of
The Right To Strike Phenomenon In South Africa. Mediterranean Journal Of
Social Sciences, 5(3), 695.
Page, Matthew J., Mckenzie, Joanne E., Bossuyt, Patrick M., Boutron, Isabelle,
Hoffmann, Tammy C., Mulrow, Cynthia D., Shamseer, Larissa, Tetzlaff, Jennifer
M., Akl, Elie A., & Brennan, Sue E. (2021).
The Prisma 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline For Reporting Systematic
Reviews. International Journal Of Surgery, 88, 105906.
Sherly, Sherly Ayuna Putri, Karsona, Agus Mulya, & Inayatillah, Revi.
(2021). Pembaharuan Penyelesaian
Perselisihan Ketenagakerjaan Di Pengadilan Hubungan Industrial Berdasarkan Asas
Sederhana, Cepat Dan Biaya Murah Sebagai Upaya Perwujudan Kepastian Hukum. Jurnal
Bina Mulia Hukum, 5(2), 310�327.
�Pertanggung Jawaban Penyelenggaraan
Pemerintahan. Penelitian Masalah Hukum. Bp-Hn. Jakarta.
Copyright Holders:
Yogo Pamungkas,
Andari Yurikosari, Amriyati (2023)
First publication
right:
Devotion - Journal
of Research and Community Service
This article is licensed under
a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0
International