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)

Yolanda Pracelia, Andari Yurikosari
{"title":"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)","authors":"Yolanda Pracelia, Andari Yurikosari","doi":"10.24912/ADIGAMA.V2I1.5184","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Based on Article 96 of Law No. 2 of 2004 concerning Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement states that in essence that if the Company is proven at the first session not to carry out its obligations under Article 155 Paragraph (3) Law No. 13 of 2003 concerning Manpower, the Judge may decide interim. In the Decision of the Industrial Relations Court Number: 181/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2016/PN.Bdg jo Decision of the Industrial Relations Court Number: 82/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2016/PN.Bdg, the Judge decides on the request for payment of process wages at interlocutory decisions and final decisions, thus raising problems, how is the legal certainty of the application for process wage payments in the Industrial Relations Court and how to prove in the request for payment of process wages in the Industrial Relations Court. This study uses normative legal research methods, which are prescriptive in nature, with methods of data collection in the form of library studies, and supported by the results of interviews with Labor Law Experts. The results of the study show that, first, legal certainty in the request for payment of process wages on interlocutory decisions must be logical and not cause doubt. Second, the evidence applied at the time of the Industrial Relations Dispute is not in accordance with the situation that occurred in practice, so that it burdens the Workers. In the decision of the Industrial Relations Court Number: 181/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2016/PN.Bdg jo Industrial Relations Decision Number: 82/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2016/PN.Bdg is not in accordance with the Laws and Regulations in Indonesia.","PeriodicalId":206816,"journal":{"name":"Jurnal Hukum Adigama","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurnal Hukum Adigama","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24912/ADIGAMA.V2I1.5184","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Based on Article 96 of Law No. 2 of 2004 concerning Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement states that in essence that if the Company is proven at the first session not to carry out its obligations under Article 155 Paragraph (3) Law No. 13 of 2003 concerning Manpower, the Judge may decide interim. In the Decision of the Industrial Relations Court Number: 181/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2016/PN.Bdg jo Decision of the Industrial Relations Court Number: 82/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2016/PN.Bdg, the Judge decides on the request for payment of process wages at interlocutory decisions and final decisions, thus raising problems, how is the legal certainty of the application for process wage payments in the Industrial Relations Court and how to prove in the request for payment of process wages in the Industrial Relations Court. This study uses normative legal research methods, which are prescriptive in nature, with methods of data collection in the form of library studies, and supported by the results of interviews with Labor Law Experts. The results of the study show that, first, legal certainty in the request for payment of process wages on interlocutory decisions must be logical and not cause doubt. Second, the evidence applied at the time of the Industrial Relations Dispute is not in accordance with the situation that occurred in practice, so that it burdens the Workers. In the decision of the Industrial Relations Court Number: 181/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2016/PN.Bdg jo Industrial Relations Decision Number: 82/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2016/PN.Bdg is not in accordance with the Laws and Regulations in Indonesia.
判决结果与工业关系法院(判决:工业关系法院判决:181/PDT - phi /2016/PN)一致。工业关系法院判决:82/PDT - phi /2016/PN. dg)
根据2004年关于劳资关系纠纷解决的第2号法第96条,实质上,如果公司在第一次会议上被证明没有履行2003年关于人力资源的第13号法第155条第(3)款规定的义务,法官可以临时决定。在劳资关系法院的裁决中,编号:181/ pdt . su - phi /2016/PN。劳资关系法院判决书编号:82/ pdt . su - phi /2016/PN。然而,法官在中间裁决和最终裁决中就支付过程工资的请求作出裁决,从而引发了劳资关系法庭支付过程工资申请的法律确定性如何以及如何在劳资关系法庭支付过程工资请求中证明的问题。本研究采用规范性的法律研究方法,以图书馆研究的形式收集数据,并以劳动法专家访谈的结果为支持。这项研究的结果表明,首先,要求在中间裁决中支付过程工资的法律确定性必须符合逻辑,不能引起怀疑。二是劳资关系纠纷发生时所适用的证据与实际发生的情况不符,给劳动者造成了负担。在劳资关系法院的决定中:181/ pdt . su - phi /2016/PN。Bdg jo劳资关系决定号:82/ pdt . su - phi /2016/PN。Bdg不符合印尼的法律法规。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信