Keabsahan PHK Sepihak Tanpa Penetapan LPHI
Putusan MA No. 129 PK/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2017
1. Isu Hukum
Apakah pemutusan hubungan kerja (PHK) sepihak oleh pengusaha tanpa penetapan dari lembaga penyelesaian perselisihan hubungan industrial (PHI) dapat dianggap cacat hukum dan apakah pekerja berhak mendapatkan kompensasi?
2. Fakta Hukum Singkat
- Penggugat (SS) adalah pekerja dari PT MCF.
- Telah terjadi PHK sepihak yang dilakukan oleh Tergugat tanpa membayar hak-hak Penggugat.
- Alasan PHK adalah karena SP-1 hingga SP-3 dan tidak tercapainya target, tetapi Penggugat tidak pernah menerima Peraturan Perusahaan atau pelatihan.
- Penggugat menilai PHK tersebut diskriminatif dan mengada-ada.
- Perkara diajukan ke PHI Jakarta Pusat, diputus melawan hukum dan Penggugat diberikan kompensasi.
- Tergugat mengajukan PK, namun Mahkamah Agung menolak permohonan tersebut.
3. Dasar Hukum yang Diterapkan
Pasal 151 ayat (3) UU No. 13 Tahun 2003:
"Pengusaha hanya dapat memutuskan hubungan kerja setelah memperoleh penetapan dari lembaga penyelesaian perselisihan hubungan industrial."
Pasal 155 ayat (2) UU No. 13 Tahun 2003:
"Selama belum ada putusan dari lembaga penyelesaian perselisihan hubungan industrial, baik pengusaha maupun pekerja/buruh harus tetap melaksanakan kewajibannya."
4. Pertimbangan Mahkamah Agung
- Mahkamah menyatakan bahwa PHK oleh Tergugat tidak sah karena tidak melalui prosedur yang diatur oleh UU.
- SP dan target tidak cukup sebagai dasar PHK tanpa penetapan lembaga PHI.
- Pekerja tetap berhak atas kompensasi sesuai hukum.
5. Implikasi Hukum
a. PHK Tanpa Penetapan PHI Tidak Sah:
Setiap PHK wajib melalui prosedur hukum yang ditentukan dan tidak dapat dilakukan sepihak oleh pengusaha.
b. Hak Pekerja atas Kompensasi:
Jika PHK tidak dilakukan secara sah, maka pekerja tetap berhak atas pesangon, uang penghargaan masa kerja, dan penggantian hak.
c. Upah Selama Proses:
Pengusaha tetap berkewajiban membayar upah selama belum ada keputusan lembaga PHI.
d. Transparansi Peraturan Perusahaan:
Perusahaan wajib menyosialisasikan peraturan perusahaan dan tidak dapat menjadikannya dasar sanksi tanpa bukti pemberitahuan.
6. Penilaian & Review
- Menegaskan supremasi prosedur hukum ketenagakerjaan.
- Memberikan perlindungan nyata terhadap pekerja.
- Menjadi rujukan praktis bagi pekerja, serikat buruh, dan HR.
- Memperkuat kewenangan lembaga PHI.
7. Kesimpulan
Putusan MA No. 129 PK/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2017 menegaskan bahwa PHK tanpa penetapan lembaga PHI merupakan tindakan melawan hukum. Pekerja berhak atas kompensasi penuh dan prosedur hukum tidak dapat digantikan oleh kebijakan sepihak perusahaan.
Sumber Putusan
https://putusan3.mahkamahagung.go.id/direktori/putusan/699e3a053d862ebd7ff892b70ba7226f.html
Lanjutkan Membaca
Artikel ini merupakan bagian dari ADIABEL – Reading Room, yang mengulas perlindungan pekerja dan prosedur PHK berdasarkan yurisprudensi Mahkamah Agung.
1. Legal Issue
Whether a unilateral termination of employment carried out by an employer without a determination from the Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement Institution (PHI) constitutes a legal defect, and whether the employee is entitled to compensation.
2. Brief Facts of the Case
- The Plaintiff (SS) was an employee of PT MCF.
- A unilateral termination of employment was carried out by the Defendant without payment of the Plaintiff’s statutory rights.
- The termination was allegedly based on warning letters (SP-1 to SP-3) and failure to meet targets, although the Plaintiff never received the Company Regulations or any training.
- The Plaintiff considered the termination discriminatory and unfounded.
- The case was brought before the Central Jakarta Industrial Relations Court, which declared the termination unlawful and awarded compensation.
- The Defendant filed a Petition for Judicial Review, which was rejected by the Supreme Court.
3. Applicable Legal Provisions
Article 151 paragraph (3) of Law No. 13 of 2003:
"An employer may terminate employment only after obtaining a determination from the industrial relations dispute settlement institution."
Article 155 paragraph (2) of Law No. 13 of 2003:
"Pending a decision from the industrial relations dispute settlement institution, both the employer and the employee shall continue to perform their respective obligations."
4. Considerations of the Supreme Court
- The Supreme Court held that the termination was invalid as it did not follow the statutory procedure.
- Warning letters and performance targets alone do not justify termination without a PHI determination.
- The employee remains entitled to compensation under the law.
5. Legal Implications
a. Termination Without PHI Determination Is Invalid:
All terminations must comply with the prescribed legal procedure and cannot be carried out unilaterally.
b. Employee’s Right to Compensation:
If termination is unlawful, the employee remains entitled to severance pay, service pay, and compensation of rights.
c. Wages During the Process:
The employer remains obligated to pay wages until a decision is rendered by the PHI.
d. Transparency of Company Regulations:
Employers must properly disseminate company regulations and may not impose sanctions without proof of notification.
6. Assessment & Review
- Affirms the supremacy of labor law procedures.
- Provides effective protection for employees.
- Serves as an important reference for workers, labor unions, and HR practitioners.
- Strengthens the authority of the industrial relations dispute settlement institution.
7. Conclusion
Supreme Court Decision No. 129 PK/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2017 affirms that termination of employment without a determination from the PHI constitutes an unlawful act. Employees are entitled to full compensation, and statutory procedures cannot be replaced by unilateral internal company policies.
Continue Reading
This article forms part of ADIABEL – Reading Room, examining employee protection and termination procedures through Supreme Court jurisprudence.
1. Isu Hukum
Apakah pemutusan hubungan kerja (PHK) sepihak oleh pengusaha tanpa penetapan dari lembaga penyelesaian perselisihan hubungan industrial (PHI) dapat dianggap cacat hukum dan apakah pekerja berhak mendapatkan kompensasi?
2. Fakta Hukum Singkat
- Penggugat (SS) adalah pekerja dari PT MCF.
- Telah terjadi PHK sepihak yang dilakukan oleh Tergugat tanpa membayar hak-hak Penggugat.
- Alasan PHK adalah karena SP-1 hingga SP-3 dan tidak tercapainya target, tetapi Penggugat tidak pernah menerima Peraturan Perusahaan atau pelatihan.
- Penggugat menilai PHK tersebut diskriminatif dan mengada-ada.
- Perkara diajukan ke PHI Jakarta Pusat, diputus melawan hukum dan Penggugat diberikan kompensasi.
- Tergugat mengajukan PK, namun Mahkamah Agung menolak permohonan tersebut.
3. Dasar Hukum yang Diterapkan
Pasal 151 ayat (3) UU No. 13 Tahun 2003:
"Pengusaha hanya dapat memutuskan hubungan kerja setelah memperoleh penetapan dari lembaga penyelesaian perselisihan hubungan industrial."
Pasal 155 ayat (2) UU No. 13 Tahun 2003:
"Selama belum ada putusan dari lembaga penyelesaian perselisihan hubungan industrial, baik pengusaha maupun pekerja/buruh harus tetap melaksanakan kewajibannya."
4. Pertimbangan Mahkamah Agung
- Mahkamah menyatakan bahwa PHK oleh Tergugat tidak sah karena tidak melalui prosedur yang diatur oleh UU.
- SP dan target tidak cukup sebagai dasar PHK tanpa penetapan lembaga PHI.
- Pekerja tetap berhak atas kompensasi sesuai hukum.
5. Implikasi Hukum
a. PHK Tanpa Penetapan PHI Tidak Sah:
Setiap PHK wajib melalui prosedur hukum yang ditentukan dan tidak dapat dilakukan sepihak oleh pengusaha.
b. Hak Pekerja atas Kompensasi:
Jika PHK tidak dilakukan secara sah, maka pekerja tetap berhak atas pesangon, uang penghargaan masa kerja, dan penggantian hak.
c. Upah Selama Proses:
Pengusaha tetap berkewajiban membayar upah selama belum ada keputusan lembaga PHI.
d. Transparansi Peraturan Perusahaan:
Perusahaan wajib menyosialisasikan peraturan perusahaan dan tidak dapat menjadikannya dasar sanksi tanpa bukti pemberitahuan.
6. Penilaian & Review
- Menegaskan supremasi prosedur hukum ketenagakerjaan.
- Memberikan perlindungan nyata terhadap pekerja.
- Menjadi rujukan praktis bagi pekerja, serikat buruh, dan HR.
- Memperkuat kewenangan lembaga PHI.
7. Kesimpulan
Putusan MA No. 129 PK/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2017 menegaskan bahwa PHK tanpa penetapan lembaga PHI merupakan tindakan melawan hukum. Pekerja berhak atas kompensasi penuh dan prosedur hukum tidak dapat digantikan oleh kebijakan sepihak perusahaan.
Sumber Putusan
https://putusan3.mahkamahagung.go.id/direktori/putusan/699e3a053d862ebd7ff892b70ba7226f.html
Lanjutkan Membaca
Artikel ini merupakan bagian dari ADIABEL – Reading Room, yang mengulas perlindungan pekerja dan prosedur PHK berdasarkan yurisprudensi Mahkamah Agung.
1. Legal Issue
Whether a unilateral termination of employment carried out by an employer without a determination from the Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement Institution (PHI) constitutes a legal defect, and whether the employee is entitled to compensation.
2. Brief Facts of the Case
- The Plaintiff (SS) was an employee of PT MCF.
- A unilateral termination of employment was carried out by the Defendant without payment of the Plaintiff’s statutory rights.
- The termination was allegedly based on warning letters (SP-1 to SP-3) and failure to meet targets, although the Plaintiff never received the Company Regulations or any training.
- The Plaintiff considered the termination discriminatory and unfounded.
- The case was brought before the Central Jakarta Industrial Relations Court, which declared the termination unlawful and awarded compensation.
- The Defendant filed a Petition for Judicial Review, which was rejected by the Supreme Court.
3. Applicable Legal Provisions
Article 151 paragraph (3) of Law No. 13 of 2003:
"An employer may terminate employment only after obtaining a determination from the industrial relations dispute settlement institution."
Article 155 paragraph (2) of Law No. 13 of 2003:
"Pending a decision from the industrial relations dispute settlement institution, both the employer and the employee shall continue to perform their respective obligations."
4. Considerations of the Supreme Court
- The Supreme Court held that the termination was invalid as it did not follow the statutory procedure.
- Warning letters and performance targets alone do not justify termination without a PHI determination.
- The employee remains entitled to compensation under the law.
5. Legal Implications
a. Termination Without PHI Determination Is Invalid:
All terminations must comply with the prescribed legal procedure and cannot be carried out unilaterally.
b. Employee’s Right to Compensation:
If termination is unlawful, the employee remains entitled to severance pay, service pay, and compensation of rights.
c. Wages During the Process:
The employer remains obligated to pay wages until a decision is rendered by the PHI.
d. Transparency of Company Regulations:
Employers must properly disseminate company regulations and may not impose sanctions without proof of notification.
6. Assessment & Review
- Affirms the supremacy of labor law procedures.
- Provides effective protection for employees.
- Serves as an important reference for workers, labor unions, and HR practitioners.
- Strengthens the authority of the industrial relations dispute settlement institution.
7. Conclusion
Supreme Court Decision No. 129 PK/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2017 affirms that termination of employment without a determination from the PHI constitutes an unlawful act. Employees are entitled to full compensation, and statutory procedures cannot be replaced by unilateral internal company policies.
Continue Reading
This article forms part of ADIABEL – Reading Room, examining employee protection and termination procedures through Supreme Court jurisprudence.