{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0106458481192335, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.351351351351352, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED BY JUDGES OF INDUSTRIAL RELATION COURT IN DECIDING REINSTATE DECISION

The implementation of the Industrial Relations Court verdict in the case of termination disputes which order employers to reinstate workers faces obstacles occasionally. This is caused by the reluctance of employers to comply with the verdict. This article aims to analyze the considered situations that the Industrial Relations Court needs to take into account in declaring a reinstatement decision in the case of termination disputes. Through the use of normative legal research methods with statutory, case, and conceptual approaches, it is concluded that such considerations include: the reinstatement of worker to his/her former job title is not appropriate if the position left by the worker has been filled by another worker; the reinstatement of worker is not appropriately provided if it may cause an unharmonious relationship between employers and workers; the reinstatement of worker is not appropriately provided if it causes prejudice to the worker; the reinstatement of worker is unsuitable if it will have a negative impact on the relationship between the worker and the other workers in the workplace; and/or the reinstatement of worker would be unsuitable if the worker has a confidentiality capacity for the company's secrets because the employer no longer trusts the worker.