Legal Literacy- In the development of dispute resolution in international trade law, the concept of Combined Process (Med-Arbitration) or hybrid methods has emerged as an attractive solution. This article explains how this method combines mediation and arbitration in dispute resolution, and how it can be applied in the context of industrial relations disputes in Indonesia. By: Dedon Dianta

What is Combined process (Med-Arbitration)?

Combined process (Med-Arbitration) is a dispute resolution method that combines mediation and arbitration in one process. This method aims to achieve a more efficient and effective resolution, by utilizing the advantages of each method. This concept is also often referred to as a hybrid method. In this case, hybrid refers to the change in the role of the third party from being a mediator who reconciles the parties, to becoming an arbitrator who resolves the parties' disputes if mediation fails. Combined process (Med-Arbitration) has become known in its development as a dispute resolution effort in international trade law. The hybrid method in dispute resolution is relatively new in Indonesia. The Indonesian National Board of Arbitration (BANI) has used its procedures and rules since 2006, having developed them since 2003. The hybrid process of dispute resolution includes a combination of arbitration-mediation, mediation-arbitration, and arbitration-mediation-arbitration.

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 is a legal umbrella for resolving industrial relations disputes by applying combined 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 and labor 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's opinion can be rejected by the parties who are in dispute. We can see that mediation is only administrative and 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.