<![CDATA[Termination of employment (PHK) due to absenteeism is one of the lawful grounds for dismissal as stipulated in Article 168 of Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower. However, in practice, this provision often leads to legal disputes, especially when the worker refuses an unfair job transfer yet continues to work at the original location. This journal examines the decision of the Industrial Relations Court in Case No. 1/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2025/PN.Pdg, which rejected the plaintiff's claim and upheld the employer’s decision to terminate the employment on the grounds of absenteeism. By applying a normative legal approach supported by case analysis, this study assesses the legality of the unilateral transfer, the procedural validity of the absenteeism claim, and the fairness of the judicial reasoning. The findings reveal that the worker had demonstrated good faith by continuing to report to the original workplace and by challenging the transfer through official bipartite and mediation mechanisms. Nevertheless, the court's judgment emphasized formal absence at the new post without considering the socio-economic realities faced by the worker. This paper recommends the refinement of legal standards on absenteeism-based terminations and the promotion of proportionality in industrial relations, especially in balancing managerial authority and worker protection.]]>
Copyrights © 2025
