The use of the method Combined process (Med-Arbitration) in resolving industrial relations disputes

In this writing, the author argues that this combined process (med-arb) can also be implemented in resolving industrial relations disputes. This is because the Law on the Settlement of Industrial Relations Disputes (UU PPHI) regulates dispute resolution through arbitration and mediation. However, it should be emphasized that there must be an agreement between the parties to use this combined process (med-arb) concept, both before and during a dispute, which also applies to the context of mediator selection. Law 48/2009 concerning Judicial Power isa legal umbrella for resolving industrial relations disputes byapplyingcombined process(med-arb). It is stated in Article 38 paragraphs (1) and (2) which reads:
(1) In addition to the Supreme Court and subordinate courts and the Constitutional Court, there are other bodies whose functions are related to judicial power. (2) The functions related to judicial power as referred to in paragraph (1) include out-of-court settlements.

Implementation Concept Combined process (Med-Arbitration) in resolving industrial relations disputes

In industrial relations disputes between employers andlabor unions, this combined process (med-arb) concept can be implemented in Tripartite Negotiations (conciliation, mediation, and arbitration). In its implementation, this is done one by one, but it can actually be simplified by conducting mediation and arbitration simultaneously. Of course, by combining these two dispute resolution mechanisms, it can save costs, time, effort, and ensure the continuation of contract implementation. The following are the details of the advantages of the combined process (med-arb), namely:
  1. It can promise disputing parties a binding and final decision on issues that cannot be resolved through mediation. A final decision is the main characteristic of the combined process (med-arb).
  2. Time effectiveness can be obtained with only 1 forum, namely the combined process (med-arb). Measurable costs also make this concept more effective compared to resolution through arbitration alone or through the Industrial Relations Court (PHI).
  3. Dispute resolution using the combined process (med-arb) concept is a flexibility that allows the parties to match in resolving their disputes. This effort also at least contributes to the resolution of industrial relations disputes that contain the principles of justice, benefit, and legal certainty for the disputing parties.
Mediation institutions basically have a mediation function as an effort to resolve industrial relations disputes in labor agencies within the Regency/City scope. Juridically, the existence of this mediation institution is weak, because the mediator in this case only provides opinions, and the mediator'sopinioncan be rejectedby the parties who arein dispute. We can see that mediation is onlyadministrativeand can be used by employers to be passive in responding to the mediator's opinion, and the party that is harmed is the labor union, because it indirectly forces them to continue the case. Factually, lawsuits in the PHI are rarely filed by employers, including lawsuits in cases of Termination of Employment (PHK). The above, ideally, the case is resolved at the tripartite level, using the combined process (med-arb) concept, so it is not only mediation, but also arbitration is carried out to reduce the case from continuing to the PHI. In addition, this settlement concept can create legal certainty between the parties because of the freedom to choose an arbitrator, and also the government's role in realizing the resolution of industrial relations disputes cheaply, quickly, fairly, and with legal certainty can be carried out well.*This article is the personal opinion of the author and does not represent the views of the editors of Legal Literacy Indonesia.