I. GENERAL

Industrial Relations, meaning the interlinkage of interests between workers/labourers and employers, have the potential of giving rise to differences of opinion and even disputes between the two sides. Disputes in the field of industrial relations up to now have been identified as occurring with regard to predetermined rights, or with regard to any manpower conditions that have not been codified whether they are work agreements, company regulations, collective labour agreements, or legislative articles. Industrial disputes can also be caused by termination of the work relationship. The stipulation on layoffs that up to know has been arranged under Act No.12 of 1984 concerning the Termination of employment in Private Corporations, turns out to be no longer effective in preventing and resolving cases involving layoffs.

This is caused by the fact that the relationship between the workers/ labourers and employers is a relationship based on agreement between the parties involved to bind themselves within such a working relationship. In the event one party no longer wishes to be bound by such a work relationship, it becomes ifficult for the parties concerned to maintain harmonious relations.

For that reason it becomes necessary to find the best solution for both parties to agree on the form of settlement, so that the Industrial Relations Court as arranged under this Act will be able to resolve cases of termination that are considered unacceptable by one of the parties. In line with the era of openness and democratization in the world of industry as manifested by the existence of freedom of association for the workers/labourers, the number of labour unions within a company may not be limited.

Competition between the labour unions in one company may result in strife among those labour unions, and in general are linked to membership and representation matters related to the negotiations for drawing up a collective labour agreement.

Legislation that oversees the resolution of industrial disputes up to now has not been able to put into effect a quick, appropriate, just, and inexpensive way of settling disputes. Act No. 22 of 1957 that all along has been used as the legal basis for industrial relations dispute settlement is felt no longer to be able to accommodate the developments that have occurred, as the rights of the individual workers/labourers have not been considered sufficiently important to allow them to be a party in industrial dispute settlements. Act No. 22 of 1957 that all along has been used as the legal basis for industrial relations dispute settlement only covers the disputes involving rights and the collective interest, whereas the ettlement of industrial disputes concerning workers/labourers individually has not been accommodated.

 Another quite fundamental matter is the passage of the P4P decisions as being within the realm of the State Administrative Agency, as stipulated by Act No. 5 of 1986 regarding the State Administrative Agency Judicial System.

With the enactment of this stipulation, the road to be traversed both by the workers/labourers and the employers in order to obtain justice have become increasingly lengthy.

 The best dispute resolution is settlement by the parties involved in the disagreements so that a result advantageous to both sides can be attained. This bipartite settlement is conducted through deliberations and consensus between the two parties without intervention by any other party hatsoever. . . . . . . . . . . . .