23. TUPE

The Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment (TUPE) Regulations aim to protect the interests of employees when the business they work for changes hands, or when their part of an operation is acquired or transferred to another business. They also apply in merger situations, when in-house processes are outsourced, when a contract to provide a service transfers from one provider to another, and when a public sector body such as a local authority ‘contracts out’ services, or indeed, brings formerly contracted out services back in house. They form a specialised corner of employment law, but one which can be very important for large numbers of people. This chapter discusses core TUPE rights, when TUPE applies, consultation requirements, contractual rights, unfair dismissal rights, sharing of information between transferors and transferees, and TUPE Regulations in respect of the takeover of insolvent businesses.

Peran PPAT Dalam Proses Peralihan Hak Atas Tanah Dan Pembagian Hak Bersama Setelah Terjadinya Penetapan Pembagian Waris Di Pengadilan Agama Kabupaten Garut

ABSTRAKPenelitian ini bertujuan mengetahui peran PPAT setelah terjadinya penetapan pembagian waris di Pengadilan Agama Garut, apabila terjadi hal terkait masalah proses peralihan hak atas tanah dan atau pembagian warisan sebaiknya para ahli waris terlebih dahulu datang ke kantor PPAT untuk berkonsultasi, agar dijelaskan tentang mekanisme penyelesaian serta di buatkan akta terkait pembagian waris sesuai peristiwa hukumnya yang sebelumnya sudah melalui proses pembagian waris di Pengadilan Agama. Penelitian ini mengggunakan pendekatan yuridis empiris.Berdasarkan metode tersebut penelitian menghasilkan pada pokoknya (1) Peran PPAT dalam proses peralihan hak dan Pembagian Waris di Pengadilan Agama Garut Menurut Putusan Pengadilan Agama yang isinya mengembalikan dan membagikan harta warisan kepada masing-masing ahli waris, selanjutnya PPAT membuatkan APHB, pada umumnya sama dengan alasan-alasan yuridis terkait pembuatan APHB yang menyatakan bahwa tanah yang merupakan warisan belum didaftar wajib dilampirkan dokumen-dokumen yang berkaitan dengan kewarisan dalam proses pendaftaran haknya sebagaimana tersebut dalam pasal 42 ayat 2 PP.24/1997, Pasal 111 PMA nomor 3 tahun 1997, KHI pasal 171-176, Pasal 37 ayat (1) PP 24/97, Pasal 136 PMA, UUPA nomor 5 Tahun 1960, PP 37 Tahun 1998, PP 3 Tahun 1997, PP 1 Tahun 2006, Perkaban Nomor 8 Tahun 2012. (2) Kendala dan solusi yang dihadapi oleh PPAT : a. Ketentuan yang mengharuskan pencantuman tanda tangan asli para ahli waris dalam pembuatan Surat Keterangan Waris dan Akta Pembagian Hak Bersama. b. Sistem pemecahan secara sempurna yang melahirkan produk akhir berupa sertifikat hak atas tanah dengan kepemilikan bersama atas nama para ahli waris. c. Perhitungan Pajak APHB. d. Persyaratan administratif yang harus dilengkapi oleh para ahli waris. e. Kantor Pertanahan terlalu kaku dalam menerapkan kelengkapan persyaratan. f. Kebiasaan Pejabat Pembuat Akta Tanah menyuruh pegawainya untuk menjadi saksi dalam pembuatan Surat Keterangan Waris. g. Para ahli waris kurang mempunyai kesadaran hukum dalam melengkapi persyaratan proses pembagian hak bersama.Kata kunci : Peralihan Hak Atas Tanah, Pembagian Hak Bersama, Penetapan Pembagian WarisABSTRACTThis study aims to determine the role of PPAT after the establishment of inheritance division in Garut Religious Court, in case of problems related to the process of transition of land rights and / or inheritance division, the heirs must first come to the PPAT office to consult, to explain the settlement mechanism and made a deed related to the division of inheritance according to legal events that have been through the process of distributing inheritance in the Religious Courts. This research employs empirical juridical approachBased on the method, the research produces basically (1) The role of PPAT in the process of transition of rights and division of inheritance in Garut Religious Court Based on the Decision of Religious Court whose contents restore and distribute inheritance to each heirs, then PPAT make APHB, juridical reasons related to the creation of the APHB stating that the land which is inherited has not been registered must be attached with documents related to inheritance in the process of registration of its rights as mentioned in Article 42 paragraph 2 of PP.24 / 1997, Article 111 PMA number 3 of 1997, KHI article 171-176, Article 37 paragraph (1) PP 24/97, Article 136 PMA, UUPA number 5 Year 1960, PP 37 Year 1998, PP 3 Year 1997, PP 1 Year 2006, Perkaban Number 8 Year 2012. (2 ) Constraints and solutions faced by PPAT: a. The provisions that require the inclusion of the original signatures of the heirs in the making of the Certificate of Inheritance and the Deed of Rights Sharing. b. A perfect splitting system that produces the final product of a land title certificate with joint ownership on behalf of the heirs. c. APHB Tax Calculation. d. Administrative requirements to be completed by the heirs. e. Land Office is too rigid in applying the requirements. f. Habit of Officers of the Deed Land Author instructs his employees to become witnesses in the making of the Inheritance Certificate. g. The heirs lack legal awareness in completing the terms of the process of sharing common rights.Keywords: Land Rights Transfer, Shared Rights Sharing, Stipulation of Inheritance

Imbalanced Environmental Interests among Subjects with Distinctive Rights

The environmental interests among subjects with different rights pose an imbalance, involving specifically of the imbalance in environmental rights sharing as well as responsibilities shouldering among different subjects. Using the method of game theory analysis, we concluded that the optimal alternatives turned out to be the public authorities’ positive regulation on the companies’ pollution, or the companies’ voluntary conduct of pollutants removing, thus achieving the overall improvement of environmental interests of the government, companies and residents. However, the co-existence of both market and government malfunction derived from the intrinsic feature of quasi-public goods, appears to be a formidable obstacle to the subjects’ environmental interests equilibrium. Consequently, the ultimate aim to achieving equilibrium in environmental interests is apparently in line with coordination among the abovementioned subjects, mutually requiring companies’ voluntary assumption of their responsibilities, government’s endeavor from the regulation level and residents’ awareness of their environmental rights.