Nindry Sulistya Widiastiani
Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta

Published : 3 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 3 Documents
Search

KEBERADAAN MOGOK KERJA DALAM KONSTELASI HUBUNGAN INDUSTRIAL PANCASILA Nindry Sulistya Widiastiani
Justitia et Pax Vol. 33 No. 2 (2017): Justitia et Pax Volume 33 Nomor 2 Tahun 2017
Publisher : Penerbit Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.24002/jep.v33i2.1602

Abstract

Indonesia’s industrial relations is called the Pancasila industrial relations, which requires a harmonic situation between the labor and the employer. On the other hand, the Pancasila industrial relations also contains the conflict concept which appears in the existence of labor strike. However, the conflict concept in the existence of labor strike is in line with the Pancasila industrial relations’ harmonic concept. The labor strike is the part of industrial relations dispute settlement, which is not to undermining the Pancasila industrial relations’ harmonic concept. The right to strike is given to the labor for increasing their bargaining power when the industrial relation dispute arises. The existence of labor strike actually become a means to restore the harmonic situation when the industrial relation dispute arises.Keywords: industrial relations, the Pancasila industrial relations, labor strikeIntisariHubungan industrial di Indonesia merupakan hubungan industrial Pancasila, yang menghendaki situasi yang harmonis antara pekerja dengan pengusaha. Di sisi lain, hubungan industrial Pancasila juga mengakomodasi konsep konflik yang tercermin dalam keberadaan mogok kerja. Keberadaan mogok kerja yang mengandung konsep konflik sejatinya tidak bertentangan dengan konsep keharmonisan dalam hubungan industrial Pancasila. Mogokkerja dihadirkan sedemikian rupa sebagai salah satu upaya penyelesaian perselisihan hubungan industrial, tidak dimaksudkan untuk merusak tatanan keharmonisan sebagaimana dicita-citakan oleh hubungan industrial Pancasila. Hak mogok kerja diberikan kepada pekerja digunakan untuk membantu menyeimbangkan posisi tawar pekerja saat terjadi perselisihan hubungan industrial. Keberadaan mogok kerja sejatinya merupakan saranauntuk mengembalikan keharmonisan di saat terjadi konflik dan perselisihan dalam hubungan industrial.Kata kunci: hubungan industrial, hubungan industrial Pancasila, mogok kerja.
KEWENANGAN MENGADILI PENGADILAN HUBUNGAN INDUSTRIAL DALAM PERKARA DIREKSI MELAWAN PERUSAHAAN Nindry Sulistya Widiastiani
Jurnal Yudisial Vol 12, No 2 (2019): ACTA NON VERBA
Publisher : Komisi Yudisial RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.29123/jy.v12i2.349

Abstract

ABSTRAKPenelitian ini menganalisis Putusan Peninjauan Kembali Mahkamah Agung Nomor 521 PK/Pdt/2017, dalam perkara gugatan uang jasa pengabdian dan penghargaan oleh direksi melawan perusahaannya. Pada putusan peninjauan kembali, Mahkamah Agung berpendapat bahwa perkara ini merupakan yurisdiksi dari pengadilan hubungan industrial, bukan pengadilan negeri. Pokok permasalahan dalam penelitian ini ialah mengenai apakah pengadilan hubungan industrial mempunyai yurisdiksi atas perkara a quo sebagaimana dikemukakan Mahkamah Agung. Penelitian ini bersifat normatif untuk menelaah prinsip-prinsip yang berkaitan dengan permasalahan secara mendalam. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pengadilan hubungan industrial tidak berwenang mengadili perkara ini. Direksi di perusahaan berkedudukan sebagai perwakilan pengusaha, bukan pekerja, sehingga perselisihan antara direksi dengan perusahaan bukanlah termasuk perselisihan hubungan industrial sebagaimana diatur dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 2 Tahun 2004. Oleh karena itu, perkara ini adalah sengketa keperdataan biasa yang merupakan yurisdiksi dari pengadilan negeri.Kata kunci: kewenangan mengadili, direksi, pengadilan hubungan industrial, pengadilan negeri. ABSTRACT This research aims to analyze the Supreme Court's civil request Decision Number 521 PK/Pdt/2017, in the case of honorarium devotion lawsuit and reward of the directors against his company. In this decision, the Supreme Court believes that this case is in the jurisdiction of the industrial relations court, not in the district court. The main issue in this research is whether the industrial relations court has jurisdiction over the case as stated by the Supreme Court. This normative research is to examine deeply about the principles that relate to the problem. The author concludes that the industrial relations court theoretically has no jurisdiction to handle this case. In any companies, directors are the representatives, not their workers, so that the dispute between the company and its directors is not an industrial relations dispute as stipulated in Law Number 2 of 2004. Therefore, the case is just a regular civil law dispute under which the district court has jurisdiction. Keywords: jurisdiction, director, industrial relations court, district court.
PERKEMBANGAN PEMBUKTIAN PADA PUTUSAN VERSTEK: STUDI KASUS DI PENGADILAN NEGERI SLEMAN DAN KOTA YOGYAKARTA Elisabeth Sundari; Nindry Sulistya Widiastiani
Justitia et Pax Vol. 35 No. 2 (2019): Justitia et Pax Volume 35 Nomor 2 Tahun 2019
Publisher : Penerbit Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.24002/jep.v35i2.2936

Abstract

Article 25 of HIR provides that in case the defendant does not appear at court process (verstek), the claim will be accepted unless it is unreasonable and against the rights. In the beginning, that article was interpreted that in case the defendant doesn’t  appear at court process (verstek), the plaintiff shall not obeyed to proof his claim. How is the development of that previous interpretation? Normative legal research has been conducted to redress that issue. The data were collected from secondary data resources from Sleman and Yogyakarta District Court decisions concerning the burden of proof  in verstek recently,  and being  analized  qualitatively. The research result shows that there is a development in  interpretating Article 125 HIR, where the judges burdened the plaintiff to proof his claim. That interpretation development supports the strive to get the truth beyond reasonable doubt, to meet a fair decision,  as good as to avoid fraud claim, and haphazard decision.