The Regulation Of Restrictions On Workers / Labourers Having Marriage In The Same Workplace

The Regulation Of Restrictions On Workers / Labourers Having Marriage In The Same Workplace Riskiyanto Umar 1, Nirwan Junus 2, Dolot Alhasni Bakung 3 1Faculty of Law, State University of Gorontalo, Indonesia. E-mail: of Law, State University of Gorontalo, Indonesia. E-mail: 3 Faculty of Law, State University of Gorontalo, Indonesia. E-mail: 2Faculty ARTICLE INFO Keywords : Adjustment, Laborer, Marry How To Cite : Riskiyanto., Junus, N., Bakung, D. A. (2019). The Regulation Of Restrictions On Workers / Labourers Having Marriage In The Same Workplace Estudiente Law Journal. Vol. 1 (3): 701-712 DOI : ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to determine the regulation of restrictions on workers/laborers to marry in one office as regulated in the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 13/PUU-XV/2017. The method used in this research is normative research and the type of approach used is the law approach, conceptual approach, and case approach. The technique of analyzing legal materials in this study uses a systematic interpretation method. The results of the study show that the provisions of Article 153 paragraph 1 letter f explain that employers are prohibited from terminating employment because the worker/ laborer has blood ties and/or marital ties with other workers/ laborers in the same company unless it has been stipulated in a work agreement, regulations company, or collective work agreement." The limitation of the right to marry in one office is based on a work agreement which is the desire of both parties. Meanwhile, the workers are citizens whose constitutional rights are protected to have a family without being limited by certain parties. This is intended to provide a guarantee of the protection of the constitutional rights of citizens to continue to marry with office colleagues without being limited by work agreements that are far from the spirit of fulfilling workers' rights as citizens. ah exists by considering which aspects will arise between the benefit and the various parties, namely the company/office, employees, and also the general public. @2019 Riskiyanto., Junus, N., Bakung, D. A. Under the license CC BY-SA 4.0 https://ejurnal.ung.ac.id/index.php/eslaw/index Estudiente Law Journal 1 (3) (1) 2019 701 I. A. INTRODUCTION Background Constitutional Court Decision Number 13/PUU-XV/2017 states the phrase “unless it has been stipulated in a work agreement, company regulation, or collective work agreement” in Article 153 Paragraph 1 letter f contradicts the 1945 Constitution and has no binding legal force. With the decision of the Constitutional Court, a company cannot establish rules that prohibit employees from marrying their officemates. In considering his decision, Judge MK Aswanto stated that a company cannot make the marriage bond between workers or workers in one company unable to be used as a basis for layoffs. The Court considers that the regulation is not in line with the norms in Article 28D paragraph2 1945 Constitution, Article 38 paragraph 1 and verse 2 Law 39/1999 and Article 6 paragraph 1International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. The rules made at least provide a sense of justice for the target who implements the rules themselves, especially in the law it is known that there is a principle of expediency, legal certainty. Until this provides a significant legal purpose in the form of legal certainty and usefulness compared to ordinary law revision methods.1 In consideration, the Constitutional Court stated that the limitation of marriage among employees in the same company did not meet the requirements for respecting the rights and freedoms of a person. On the other hand, the Constitutional Court considered that no other person's rights or freedoms were disturbed by blood ties or marital ties. Likewise, there are no moral norms, religious values, security, and public order in a democratic society which is disturbed by the fact that workers or laborers in one company have marital ties. Following Article 28J paragraph2 In the 1945 Constitution, restrictions on human rights can only be carried out with the sole purpose of guaranteeing the recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and to fulfill just demands following considerations of morality, religious values, security, and public order in a society. democratic. In addition, the Court also believes that the reasons used by the Indonesian Employers' Association (APINDO) and PT. PLN to apply the rules limiting marriage between people is irrelevant. In their statement, APINDO and PLN stated that Article 153 paragraph1letter f of the Manpower Law aims to prevent negative things that occur in the company environment and to build good, professional, and fair working conditions, as well as prevent potential conflicts of interest in making decisions within the company. Regarding this matter, the Court believes that such reasons do not 1Abdul Hakim Siagian, (2021). Omnibus Law in the Perspective of Constitutionality and Legal Policy. Journal of Law Review. 3 (1), 93 https://ejurnal.ung.ac.id/index.php/eslaw/index Estudiente Law Journal 1 (3) (1) 2019 702 meet the requirements for constitutional restrictions as contained in Article 28J paragraph2 1945 Constitution. Concerns about negative things in the company environment and potential conflicts of interest in making decisions within the company can be prevented by formulating strict company regulations to enable the building of employee integrity so that good, professional, and fair working conditions are realized.2 Prospective researchers consider that the Constitutional Court's decision to allow office marriages needs to be reviewed legally, especially concerning human rights values as stated in Article 28 of the 1945 Constitution and the strength of agreements that have been made by companies and workers/laborers as determined by Article 1320 of the Civil Code. The author argues that in reality a person who will be appointed as a worker/laborer in a company, that person must sign a work agreement which juridically refers to Article 1320 of the Civil Code which stipulates four conditions for the validity of an agreement, namely: a. Agree on those who bind themselves; b. The ability to make an engagement; c. A certain thing; d. A permissible reason. The agreement made must refer to Article 1320 of the Civil Code as described above. In other words, if an agreement has been approved, a person who is appointed as a worker/laborer must comply with the contents of the agreement, including not marrying another worker/laborer in the same company. The hope is first, that there will be no conflict of interest that interferes with the company's secrets because the company's affairs do not become the subject of family discussion and vice versa. Second, it is hoped that the agreement will prevent the provision of double benefits which will cause social jealousy to other workers/laborers. These two expe (...truncated)