Kompetensi Absolut dan Pendekatan Substance Over Form dalam Sengketa Hubungan Kerja Terselubung pada Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 818 K/Pdt/2026

Abstract

Judicial competence determines which court is authorized to examine a given dispute, divided into absolute competence and relative competence. Absolute competence is mandatory and non-derogable. This study examines Supreme Court Decision No. 818 K/Pdt/2026, in which a worker and a company disputed the character of two agreements titled “Cooperation Agreement for Professional Development Investment,” executed based on a pre-existing indefinite-term employment agreement (PKWTT). The District Court and High Court applied a claim-based test, holding the District Court retained absolute competence, and found the employee liable for wanprestasi. The Supreme Court reversed, applying a relationship-based test: notwithstanding the agreements’ title, their internal terminology identified the parties as employer and worker, rendering the true relationship one of employment falling within the Industrial Relations Court’s exclusive competence. Using a normative juridical method, this study finds the disparity across the three tiers methodological rather than factual, and concludes that the Supreme Court’s substance-over-form reasoning is doctrinally correct, consistent with the cumulative work-wages-command test and the doctrine of legal circumvention.