Abstract
Termination of Employment (PHK) due to repeated absenteeism often causes disputes between workers and employers, especially regarding the amount of severance rights. This study aims to analyze the juridical qualifications of severance rights disputes due to layoffs due to repeated absenteeism at PT EDS Manufacturing Indonesia Automotive Wire based on Government Regulation Number 35 of 2021, as well as examine workers' resistance actions after deadlock by referring to Article 1365 of the Civil Code. The research method uses an empirical legal approach with qualitative analysis. Primary data was obtained through interviews with Human Resources Development (HRD), while secondary data came from documentation and literature studies. The analysis was carried out in a qualitative descriptive manner by linking research facts and relevant legal provisions. The results of the study showed that layoffs were carried out after the company provided guidance through a Warning Letter (SP-1, SP-2, SP-3) to workers who were repeatedly absent. The dispute arose due to differences of opinion regarding the amount of post-layoff rights. The post-deadlock workers' resistance actions have not met the elements of unlawful acts because the conditions for unlawful acts, mistakes, losses, and causal relationships are not proven cumulatively. It is concluded that the dispute is more appropriately qualified as an industrial relations dispute regarding the fulfillment of workers' rights in accordance with Government Regulation Number 35 of 2021.