Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 3 Documents
Search
Journal : Hukum Responsif : Jurnal Ilmiah Fakultas Hukum Universitas Swadaya Gunung Jati Cirebon

LEGAL PROTECTION FOR WORKERS ON OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AT PT. MEGA RAYA PROPERTY Kaenama Muhammad, Yunan; Marlina, Tina; Maulida, Irma
Hukum Responsif Vol 15 No 2 (2024)
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Swadaya Gunung Jati

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.33603/responsif.v15i2.9535

Abstract

The implementation of occupational safety has the primary goal of improving and maintaining all workers' physical, mental, and social welfare in all types of work, preventing health problems caused by work, and avoiding accidents during work. Cirebon is one area famous for its significant progress in industrial development, one of which is in the construction sector. These jobs have a high risk of work accidents during the construction process of construction projects because work safety standards are still inadequate. This is evidence of the lack of attention to the importance of occupational safety in construction work. In this study, a normative juridical approach method is used, namely literature law research, which is carried out by researching library materials or secondary data. Then, it continued with the collection of primary material data through direct interviews and observations as well as secondary materials obtained from literature studies in the form of law books, legal journals, and other literacy associated with the core of this research. The study results show that: (1) The form of legal protection in PT. Mega Raya Property uses a form of preventive legal protection because the company uses its policies in the employment agreement in the form of an oral agreement, so the form of legal protection for workers is not optimal because workers do not get their rights optimally and clearly if something happens. (2) The efforts to resolve work accident cases experienced by workers have been carried out based on the policy of PT. Mega Raya Property is per Government Regulation Number 82 of 2019 concerning the Implementation of Work Accident Insurance and Death Insurance Programs, and the final results are determined based on mutual agreement.
LEGAL PROTECTION FOR LOSS OF MOTORBIKES IN THE PARKING LOT OF THE TOURISM CENTER OF CIREBON REGENCY BASED ON REGIONAL REGULATION NO.11 OF 2019 CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PARKING: (Case study in Bukit Cinta – Mundu, Cirebon Regency) Andita Alfarisy, Panji; Marlina, Tina; Maulida, Irma
Hukum Responsif Vol 15 No 2 (2024)
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Swadaya Gunung Jati

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.33603/responsif.v15i2.9550

Abstract

Chapter 18, paragraph (1) of the Consumer Protection Law is included and regulated regarding the provisions for the Inclusion of Standard Clauses, where "Business actors in offering goods and or services intended for trading are prohibited from making or incorporating standard clauses on every document and or agreement when stating the transfer of responsibility of business actors", Chapter 18 paragraph (2) of the Consumer Protection Law states that "Business actors are prohibited from including standard clauses whose disclosure is difficult to understand". Chapter 32 of Cirebon Regency Regional Regulation No. 11 of 2019 which states that "Getting a sense of security for the use of Parking Space Units (SRP)". This type of research is Normative Law, which analyzes laws, regulations, and other legal materials. The problem in this study is how to provide legal protection for consumers who lose their motorbikes in the parking lot of the Bukit Cinta Tourism Center, Cirebon Regency and how to resolve disputes in the event of losses on the part of consumers who are parked in the parking lot of the Bukit Cinta Tourism Center, Cirebon Regency.Legal protection for consumers in the parking of motor vehicle tourism objects in Cirebon does not yet exist because of the standard clause on ticket parking related to the transfer of responsibility for the parking manager. This is clearly contrary to Chapter 18, paragraph (1) of the Consumer Protection Law. Including a standard clause with the transfer of responsibility has violated the freedom of contract in the Civil Code. Efforts to resolve disputes if there is a loss to the owner of the vehicle parked at the tourist attraction, then to divide or transfer the burden of responsibility, the parking manager can collaborate with the insurance company to provide parking insurance for each consumer. To protect consumers legally, several options of legal remedies can be pursued by litigation or non-litigation, such as mediation, mediation at the Directorate of Consumer Protection, the Dispute Resolution Agency (BPSK), and the District Court
JURIDICAL ANALYSIS ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN CASES OF UNLAWFUL ACTS Karmenita, Karmenita; Kafi Habib, Rakha; Maulida, Irma
Hukum Responsif Vol 15 No 2 (2024)
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Swadaya Gunung Jati

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.33603/responsif.v15i2.9552

Abstract

The primary purpose of the law is to realize justice; Aristotle said that justice is to give everyone what is his right. Legal facts show difficulties in resolving disputes, such as settlements that are not under the law and things considered unfair. For example, the plaintiffs felt the settlement was unfair in settling disputes concerning unlawful acts between farmers and PT PG Rajawali II. This study aims to 1) analyze the dispute resolution in the case of unlawful acts and the efforts made to resolve disputes in the case, and 2) the impact on the plaintiffs who dispute in the case using the normative juridical method with the type of qualitative research. The settlement of disputes in the case of unlawful acts is analyzed using the theory of justice; the dispute settlement efforts are not by the law and are considered unfair by the plaintiffs because what they are entitled to is not fulfilled. The plaintiffs did not receive compensation due to the defendants' destruction of land. They did not receive replacement land due to land included in the extension of the HGU, which resulted in the loss of land that the plaintiffs could use for economic activities.