Constructive Termination of Employment by Indonesia Companies: A Comparative Study

  • Desak Putu Dewi Kasih Faculty of Law, Universitas Udayana
  • Nyoman Satyayuda Dananjaya Faculty of Law, Yamaguchi University
  • Kadek Agus Sudiarawan Faculty of Law, Universitas Udayana
  • I Putu Bimbisara Wimuna Raksita Faculty of Law, Universitas Udayana

Abstract

This research aims to identify the regulation and dispute resolution regarding constructive termination of employment by a company in the perspective of Indonesian Labor Law. This research also compares the constructive termination of employment by companies based on International Law and Japan Labor Law. This is normative legal research with a statutory approach, conceptual approach, and also comparative law approach. The result shows that the constructive termination of employment has not been specifically regulated in the Indonesian Labor Law system, hence it becomes an exploitation gap that is used by companies to be able to terminate employment relations without protecting the worker’s right. The dispute resolution mechanism in terms of constructive termination of employments still refers to the provisions of the Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement Law, namely through bipartite negotiations, tripartite, and industrial relations courts. The constructive termination of employment has been substantively regulated in the ILO Convention C-158 concerning the Termination of Employment, which regulated in Article 4 to Article 6. Further in Japan, the constructive termination of employment is regulated in the Japan Labor Union Act, Act Number 174 of 1949 in Article 7 paragraph (i), (iii), and (iv) with its national enforcement.

Published
Sep 29, 2021
How to Cite
KASIH, Desak Putu Dewi et al. Constructive Termination of Employment by Indonesia Companies: A Comparative Study. Substantive Justice International Journal of Law, [S.l.], v. 4, n. 2, p. 97 - 114, sep. 2021. ISSN 2599-0462. Available at: <https://substantivejustice.id/index.php/sucila/article/view/143>. Date accessed: 17 jan. 2022. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.33096/substantivejustice.v4i2.143.