Abstract
This article examines how courts lack uniform judicial standards for determining Upah Proses, which refers to wages payable during termination proceedings in Indonesia. Constitutional Court Decision No. 37/PUU-IX/2011 requires employers to pay Upah Proses until courts issue a final and binding judgment. However, subsequent instruments introduce conflicting limitations and ambiguous provisions, including Supreme Court Circular Letter No. 3 of 2015 and Law No. 6 of 2023. Such inconsistencies create normative disharmony across constitutional, statutory, and administrative frameworks. The absence of coherent interpretive guidance divides the judiciary, leading courts to issue divergent rulings, even in cases with similar factual circumstances. The study examines 117 judicial decisions issued between 2007 and 2023, and analyzes eight representative findings. Interviews with workers and employers show how legal uncertainty impacts the parties involved. The findings show that ad hoc judges, representing worker and employer constituencies, adopt differing orientations that further exacerbate the absence of standardized judicial criteria. This fragmentation in judicial reasoning increases workers’ socio-economic vulnerability during protracted litigation. The article advocates for the urgent harmonization of legal norms and clarification of judicial guidelines. Such measures would enhance legal certainty, promote consistent adjudication, and provide stronger protection for workers, who are the structurally weaker party within Indonesia’s industrial relations system.
Bahasa Abstract
Artikel ini menganalisis ketiadaan standar peradilan dalam menentukan Upah Proses, yaitu upah yang dibayarkan kepada pekerja selama proses pemutusan hubungan kerja di Indonesia. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 37/PUU-IX/2011 mewajibkan pengusaha membayar Upah Proses hingga adanya putusan berkekuatan hukum tetap. Namun, Surat Edaran Mahkamah Agung No. 3 Tahun 2015 dan Undang-Undang No. 6 Tahun 2023 mengatur pembatasan dan ketentuan yang saling bertentangan. Ketiadaan pedoman yang seragam menyebabkan perbedaan di antara majelis hakim, sehingga hakim menetapkan putusan yang beragam bahkan untuk perkara yang kondisi faktualnya serupa. Studi ini menelaah 117 putusan pengadilan antara tahun 2007 hingga 2023, dan analisis terhadap delapan putusan representatif. Wawancara dengan pekerja dan pengusaha juga dilakukan untuk menunjukkan bagaimana ketidakpastian hukum memengaruhi para pihak yang terlibat dalam perselisihan pemutusan hubungan kerja. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa hakim ad hoc dari unsur pekerja dan pengusaha memiliki orientasi yang berbeda, yang semakin memperburuk ketiadaan standarisasi dalam pertimbangan hakim. Fragmentasi dalam pertimbangan hukum ini meningkatkan kerentanan sosial-ekonomi pekerja selama proses pemutusan hubungan kerja. Artikel ini mendorong perlunya harmonisasi norma dan kejelasan pedoman peradilan. Hal tersebut diperlukan guna menjamin kepastian, mendorong konsistensi putusan, serta memberikan pelindungan bagi pekerja sebagai pihak yang secara struktural lebih lemah dalam sistem hubungan industrial di Indonesia.
References
Abusomwan, J.O. 2023. ‘Termination of Contract of Employment During Probationary Period: Need for Judicial Review’. International Review of Law and Jurisprudence 5 (1): 27–32.
Aneshensel, Carol S. 1992. ‘Social Stress: Theory and Research’. Annual Review of Sociology 18: 15–38.
Babbie, Earl. 2011. The Basics of Social Research. USA: Wadsworth.
Cabrelli, David, and Rebecca Zahn. 2013. ‘The Elective and Automatic Theories of Termination in the Common Law of the Contract of Employment: Conundrum Resolved?’ The Modern Law Review 76 (6): 1106–1119.
Collins, Philippa. 2018. ‘The Inadequate Protection of Human Rights in Unfair Dismissal Law,” Industrial Law Journal’. Industrial Law Journal 47 (4): 504–530.
Freeman, M.D.A. 2001. Lloyd’s Introduction to Jurisprudence. London: Sweet & Maxweel.
Friedman, Lawrence M. 1969. ‘Legal Culture and Social Development’. Law & Society Review 4 (1): 29–44.
Gunadi, Fitriana. 2020. ‘Upah Proses Dalam Pemutusan Hubungan Kerja’. Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan 50 (4): 858–878.
Indrati S, Maria Farida. 2007. Ilmu Perundang-Undangan 1 : Jenis, Fungsi Dan Materi Muatan. Yogyakarta: Kanisius.
Kelsen, Hans. 1949. General Theory of Law & State. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Kelman, Mark. “Interpretive Construction in the Substantive Criminal Law”. Stanford Law Review 33 (4): 591-673.
Kim, Melissa H. 2016. ‘All or Nothing: The Employment Security Laws of Japan and the United States’. Boston University International Law Journal 34 (2): 415–452.
Kosim, Kevin, and Gunardi Gunardi. 2022. ‘Worker’s Right to Wages in the Process of Being Dismissed Unilaterally by the Company (A Case Study of the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Number 516 K/Pdt-Sus-PHI/2019)’. 3rd Tarumanagara International Conference on the Application of Social Sciences and Humanities (Netherlands), 2022.
Little, Arthur. 1948. ‘The Philosophy of Work’. The Irish Monthly 76 (896): 56–65.
MacCormick, Neil. 2010. Rhetoric and the Rule of Law: A Theory of Legal Reasoning. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Marmor, Andrei. 2005. Interpretation and Legal Theory. Oregon: Oxford dan Portland.
Prahassacitta, Vidya. 2013. ‘Makna Upah Proses Menurut Mahkamah Konstitusi Dibandingkan Dengan Beberapa Putusan Mahkamah Agung’. Jurnal Yudisial 6 (3): 207–226.
Shi, Elizabeth and Freeman Zhong. 2018. ‘Rethinking the Reinstatement Remedy in Unfair Dismissal Law’. Adelaide Law Review 39 (2): 363–392.
Smit, Paul and Joaquin Grobler. 2021. ‘Dismissal During Probationary Period of Employment in South Africa: An International Perspective’. African Journal of International and Comparative Law 29 (4): 479–498.
Soekanto, Soerjono. 1983. Faktor-Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Penegakan Hukum: Pidato Pengukuhan Dalam Jabatan Guru Besar Tetap Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia. Jakarta: Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia.
Soepomo, Iman. 1987. Hukum Perburuhan Bidang Hubungan Kerja. Jakarta: Djambatan.
Sturua, Nata. 2015. ‘Termination of Employment Contract’. Journal of Law (TSU) 2015 (1): 185–200.
Yeoman, Ruth. 2014. Meaningful Work and Workplace Democracy: A Philosophy of Work and a Politics of Meaningfulness. United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.
Yeung, Karen and Sofia Ranchordás. 2024. An Introduction to Law and Regulation. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Yudho, Winarno, and Heri Tjandrasari. 1987. ‘Efektivitas Hukum Dalam Masyarakat’. Hukum Dan Pembangunan, 1987, 57–63.
Legal References
Law No. 12 of 1964 on Termination of Employment in Private Enterprises.
Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower.
Law No. 2 of 2004 on Settlement of Industrial Relations Disputes.
Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation.
Law No. 6 of 2023 on Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 2 of 2022 on Job Creation as a Law.
Constitutional Court Decision No. 37/PUU-IX/2011.
Constitutional Court Decision No. 168/PUU-XXI/2023.
Supreme Court Circular Letter No. 3 of 2015.
Industrial Relations Court at the Central Jakarta District Court Decision No. 172/PHI/G/2011/PN.JKT.PST.
Industrial Relations Court at the Central Jakarta District Court Decision No. 16/PHI.G/2012/PN.JKT.PST.
Industrial Relations Court at the Central Jakarta District Court Decision No. 228/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2018/PN.Jkt.Pst.
Industrial Relations Court at the Central Jakarta District Court Decision No. 118/PHI.G/PN.Jkt.Pst.
Industrial Relations Court at the Central Jakarta District Court Decision No. 242/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2017/PN.Jkt.Pst.
Industrial Relations Court at the Central Jakarta District Court Decision No. 01/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2019/PN.JKT.PST.
Industrial Relations Court at the Central Jakarta District Court Decision No. 130/Pdt.Sus-PHI.G/2017/PN.JKT.PST.
Industrial Relations Court at the Central Jakarta District Court Decision No. 257/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2017/PN.Jkt.Pst.
Supreme Court Decision No. 507 K/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2013.
Supreme Court Decision No. 779 K/Pdt.Sus/2012.
Supreme Court Decision No. 453 K/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2019.
Supreme Court Decision No. 855 K/Pdt.Sus/2009.
Supreme Court Decision No. 662 K/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2018.
Supreme Court Decision No. 706 K/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2019.
Supreme Court Decision No. 302 K/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2018.
Supreme Court Decision No. 510 K/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2018.
Recommended Citation
., Fitriana; Hayati, Tri; and Uwiyono, Aloysius
(2026)
"When Uniform Standards Are Missing: Judicial Inconsistency in Wages During Termination Proceedings in Indonesia,"
The Indonesian Journal of Socio-Legal Studies: Vol. 5:
No.
2, Article 1.
DOI: 10.54828/ijsls.2026v5n2.1
Available at:
https://scholarhub.ui.ac.id/ijsls/vol5/iss2/1
