Strengthening law enforcement mechanisms for labor dispute resolution

Download This Article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

This study examines the effectiveness of labor law enforcement in Indonesia, focusing on the implementation of final and binding decisions of the industrial relations court (pengadilan hubungan industrial—PHI). Although such decisions are legally obligatory, empirical conditions demonstrate frequent employer non-compliance, resulting in the continued denial of workers’ normative rights. Using a normative-empirical legal approach, this study examines industrial relations dispute settlement (PPHI law) regulations, assesses employers’ legal obligations, and identifies institutional and socio-legal barriers to law enforcement. Empirical evidence from the Manado District Court in 2023–2024 indicates that several favorable worker decisions remained unenforced despite formal enforcement notices issued by national courts. The findings indicate systemic weaknesses across three interrelated dimensions: legal substance, reflected in limitations of procedural and executive norms; legal structure, characterized by weak supervision, limited enforcement authority, and inadequate institutional coordination; and legal culture, marked by low compliance and the absence of effective deterrent sanctions. These conditions illustrate a clear disparity between normative legal expectations (das Sollen) and practical implementation (das Sein). Therefore, this study recommends regulatory reform, institutional strengthening, and harmonization of enforcement mechanisms to enhance legal certainty, reinforce judicial authority, and ensure effective protection of workers’ rights nationally.

Keywords: Law Enforcement, Labor Disputes, Industrial Relations

Authors’ individual contribution: Conceptualization — E.R.T., S.B., S.P., and S.B.; Methodology — E.R.T., S.B., S.P., and S.B.; Writing — Original Draft — E.R.T., S.B., S.P., and S.B.; Writing — Review & Editing — E.R.T.; Supervision — E.R.T.; Project Administration — E.R.T.

Declaration of conflicting interests: The Authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

JEL Classification: K3, K4

Received: 28.07.2025
Revised: 21.01.2026; 04.02.2026; 03.04.2026
Accepted: 20.04.2026
Published online: 24.04.2026

How to cite this paper: Takasanakeng, E. R., Bachri, S., Pati, S., Muchtar, S., & Syahird, A. (2026). Strengthening law enforcement mechanisms for labor dispute resolution. Corporate Law & Governance Review, 8(2), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.22495/clgrv8i2p13