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