<![CDATA[Kebebasan berserikat merupakan hak fundamental pekerja yang dijamin dalam hukum ketenagakerjaan Indonesia, tetapi perlindungannya menghadapi persoalan ketika pemutusan hubungan kerja (PHK) terjadi setelah pekerja membentuk atau menjalankan aktivitas serikat pekerja. Penelitian terdahulu telah banyak membahas PHK, kebebasan berserikat, dan union busting, tetapi belum secara khusus menguji ketegangan antara alasan efisiensi sebagai legal justification PHK dan kemungkinan adanya motif anti-serikat dalam perkara konkret hingga tingkat Mahkamah Agung. Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis legalitas PHK dalam Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 815 K/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2016 serta konstruksi perlindungan hukum terhadap pekerja dalam konteks kebebasan berserikat. Penelitian menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dengan statute approach dan case approach. Bahan hukum utama meliputi peraturan ketenagakerjaan dan Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 815 K/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2016. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa perusahaan mendasarkan PHK terhadap lima pekerja pada alasan efisiensi. Pengadilan Hubungan Industrial menyatakan PHK tidak sah dan memerintahkan pekerja dipekerjakan kembali, sedangkan Mahkamah Agung mengabulkan kasasi perusahaan, membatalkan putusan tersebut, menerima alasan efisiensi, dan memberikan hak kompensasi kepada pekerja. Meskipun terdapat kedekatan waktu antara pembentukan serikat pekerja dan PHK, fakta tersebut tidak dengan sendirinya membuktikan union busting. Temuan ini menunjukkan pentingnya membedakan alasan formal PHK dari pembuktian motif anti-serikat serta memperkuat perlindungan melalui pencegahan, penyelesaian perselisihan, dan pemulihan hak pekerja. Legal Protection for Workers Who Experience Termination of Employment Due to Their Participation in Trade Unions Abstract Freedom of association is a fundamental right of workers guaranteed under Indonesian labor law, yet its protection remains problematic when termination of employment occurs after workers establish or engage in trade union activities. Previous studies have extensively examined termination of employment, freedom of association, and union busting, but have not specifically examined the tension between efficiency as a legal justification for termination and the possibility of an anti-union motive in a case adjudicated by the Supreme Court. This study aims to analyze the legality of termination of employment in Supreme Court Decision Number 815 K/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2016 and the legal protection afforded to workers in the context of freedom of association. This study employs a normative juridical method using a statute approach and a case approach. The primary legal materials consist of labor regulations and Supreme Court Decision Number 815 K/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2016. The findings show that the company based the termination of five workers on efficiency grounds. The Industrial Relations Court declared the termination unlawful and ordered the workers to be reinstated, whereas the Supreme Court granted the company's appeal, overturned the decision, accepted efficiency as the basis for termination, and awarded compensation to the workers. Although there was a temporal proximity between the establishment of the trade union and the termination, this fact alone does not establish union busting. The findings demonstrate the importance of distinguishing the formal justification for termination from evidence of an anti-union motive and strengthening legal protection through preventive measures, dispute resolution, and the restoration of workers' rights.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
