Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2020 - 2025
0.444
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Jambura Law Review Devotion: Journal of Research and Community Service
Sari, Andari Yuriko
Unknown Affiliation
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
Quo Vadis Employee Participation concerning Share Ownership in Companies in Indonesia Sari, Andari Yuriko; Wicaksana, Arif; Amriyati, Amriyati; Utomo, Gabriel Bramantyo
Devotion : Journal of Research and Community Service Vol. 4 No. 4 (2023): Devotion: Journal of Research and Community Service
Publisher : Green Publisher Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.36418/devotion.v4i4.460

Abstract

In general, in various companies, workers are rarely considered company assets, so that in various company developments, the role of workers is not an important thing to consider. However, along with the times, workers are then considered as company assets and have even begun to develop in various companies that include workers in share ownership of the company concerned and by participating in company share ownership (ESOP: Employee Stock Ownership Program), thus workers feel become part of the company. Article 43 Paragraph (3) letter a Law no. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies (“UUPT”) basically states that companies can offer shares to their own employees. However, basically there is no obligation for companies to include their workers in the ownership of company shares according to the Company Law. The problems in share ownership in companies for workers are (1) What are the legal problematic dilemmas regarding workers' participation in share ownership in companies in Indonesia? (2) What is the normative regulation of workers' share ownership in a company if it is to be regulated in sources of employment law, both autonomous and heteronomous? . In general, it can be concluded that there are still many obstacles in terms of workers wanting to be included in company ownership because according to laws and regulations participation in company share ownership is not a mandatory thing for companies to do, but must be an initiative of workers' associations and/or unions. Apart from that, there is also the problem of how to regulate normatively related to share ownership in the company for workers so that workers have a legal basis to own shares in the company.
Collective Agreement as Evidence with Binding Legal Force in Decision of Industrial Relations Court Sari, Andari Yuriko; Santoso PN, Sugeng
Jambura Law Review VOLUME 6 NO. 1 JANUARY 2024
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Gorontalo

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.33756/jlr.v6i1.20757

Abstract

A Collective Agreement, once registered and ratified at the Industrial Relations Court, should be regarded as authentic evidence possessing binding legal force for all parties, including judges. However, in various rulings from both the District Court and Supreme Court levels, the Collective Agreement has been consistently disregarded as evidence with enduring legal implications and enforceability on the involved parties. The central issue investigated in this research pertains to how judges perceive the Collective Agreement as evidence and the position it holds as binding evidence in the decisions of the Industrial Relations Court. This research employs a normative legal analysis approach (statute case) and conducts a case study by examining multiple industrial relations court decisions that have overlooked Collective Agreements as evidence with binding legal force. In contrast to several prior studies and writings conducted by other entities, which have primarily confined the role of the Collective Agreement to being binding on the parties and admissible as evidence in the Industrial Relations Court, this research scrutinizes the Collective Agreement, asserting that it should be established with unequivocal legal force for the involved parties, rendering it conclusive and precluding further legal actions. Nevertheless, in various Industrial Relations Court Decisions, these agreements are, in fact, overlooked and not treated as evidence with binding legal force, thereby introducing legal ambiguity for the parties involved. Additionally, despite the ideal scenario of the Collective Agreement being crafted as an authentic deed to ensure its binding nature, practical instances reveal instances where Collective Agreements are private deeds, each possessing distinct evidentiary powers.
Co-Authors Amriyati Amriyati Arif Wicaksana Santoso PN, Sugeng Utomo, Gabriel Bramantyo