<![CDATA[Out-of-court dispute resolution (Alternative Dispute Resolution/ADR) in industrial relations is regulated under Law Number 2 of 2004 on Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement (PPHI Law), which comprises bipartite negotiation, mediation, conciliation, and arbitration. This study analyzes the regulation of ADR in the employment sector and its implementation in a dispute between PT Asuransi Harta Aman Pratama and two former members of its Board of Directors, who held a dual status as employees and corporate organs. The study employs a normative juridical method with a statutory approach through library research. The findings show that the PPHI Law provides a tiered ADR framework that promises faster and more cost-effective resolution. However, in this case the mediator concluded that the dispute fell outside the scope of the PPHI Law because the employment relationship ended upon appointment through the General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS), and therefore recommended that the dispute be resolved under company law at the District Court. ADR thus served merely as a procedural filter and a forum-shifting mechanism, while the mediation period exceeded the formal time limit. This study concludes that the success of employment-related ADR depends heavily on the clarity of the parties’ legal status.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
