| Summary: | This research is aimed at studying the implementation of uitvoerbaar bij voorraad
on the settlement of disputes in the Court of Industrial Relations, studying the basic
considerations of the Judge in deciding a lawsuit of uitvoerbaar bij voorraad and
studying the obstacles in the implementation of uitvoerbaar bij voorraad judgment in the
Court of Industrial Relations.
This research belongs to a normative-empirical research employing library research
to collect secondary data and field research to collect primary data. The data collected
from both the library and field research were analyzed descriptive-qualitatively.
Secondary law materials in the form of legal opinion were described and classified in
order to seek differences and similarities from which a conclusion could be drawn. There
research employed sociology of law and political of law.
The first result of the research shows that immediately-enforceable judgment
(uitvoerbaar bij voorraad) in the Court of Industrial Relations has not been implemented
yet. The Panel of Judges has never granted Uitvoerbaar bij voorraad petitioned by the
labor force. It is caused by the difficulties found in performing restoration to
original condition, since there are only two types of cassation law in the Court of
Industrial Relations. The second result shows that the basic consideration of the Panel of
Judges in declining the petitions of immediately-enforceable judgment (uitvoerbaar bij
voorraad) is the fact that what is called uitvoerbaar bij voorraad by the judges is not the
same immediately-enforceable judgment (uitvoerbaar bij voorraad) found in the Civil
Procedural Law, but is the provision of the Interim Meascure. The basic considerations
used by the Judges in declining a demand of uitvoerbaar bij voorraad issued by the
Prosecutor in the Court of Industrial Relations are Article 96 of Act Number 2 of 2004
regarding the Settlement of Industrial Relations Disputes and Article 155 of Act Number
13 of 2003 regarding Employment. The third result shows that there is normative
obstacles, that is on the legal basis utilized by the judges of the Court of Industrial
Relations in objecting the demand of uitvoerbaar bij voorraad, regulations that
specifically regulate are more prioritized than that of generally regulate due to the
implementation of Article 96 of Act Number 2 of 2004 regarding the Settlement of
Indutrial Relations Disputes and Article 155 of Act Number 13 of 2003 regarding the
Employment is imperative. Consequently, it uses temporary disposal.
|
|---|