ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Page d'accueil > Profils par pays >  > Commentaires

Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2012, publiée 102ème session CIT (2013)

Convention (n° 98) sur le droit d'organisation et de négociation collective, 1949 - Türkiye (Ratification: 1952)

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

The Committee notes the observations provided by the Government on the 2011 comments of the International Metalworkers’ Federation (IMF) and of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC). The Committee also notes the comments made by the ITUC in a communication dated 31 July 2012 alleging violations of collective bargaining rights and numerous cases of anti-union dismissals. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon in its next report. The Committee is examining the Government’s observations on matters raised by Education International (EI) in 2011, as well as the comments submitted by EI on 31 August 2012, in the framework of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).
Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee recalls that in its previous observation it had observed that the ITUC referred to widespread acts of anti-union discrimination in the public and private sectors and had noted that similar allegations were submitted by the Public Employees’ Trade Unions (KESK). The Committee requested the Government to indicate the procedure that applies for the examination of complaints of anti-union discrimination in the public sector and to provide statistical data showing progress made in addressing effectively allegations of acts of anti-union discrimination and interference both in the public and private sectors (number of cases brought to the competent bodies, average duration of proceedings and remedies imposed). The Committee noted the observations provided by the Government on the ITUC and the KESK comments. The Government indicated, in particular, that in addition to the abovementioned legislative provisions which, in its view provide for sufficient protection against all types of discrimination, the necessary warnings have been issued by the Government and four circulars have been published by the Office of the Prime Minister on the unacceptability of interference in trade union activities of public employees. The Committee further noted that the Government indicated that no statistical database regarding complaints of anti-union discrimination is kept by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security. The Government further explained that, as regards the public sector, public servants have the right to make written or verbal complaints to their supervisors requesting to investigate cases of trade union discrimination. If the alleged cases are not resolved following this procedure, administrative proceedings can be initiated. The Government informed that the State Personnel Administration possesses statistical information and documents submitted to it by the relevant institutions regarding claims relating to cases of anti-union discrimination in the public sector. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide this statistical data. It notes once again that in its latest communication, the ITUC refers to cases of reinstatement ordered by the court but alleges that justice is too slow for many. Noting once again, however, that no information has been provided by the Government with regard to the public and private sector, the Committee reiterates its previous request for information and expresses the firm hope that the Government will take all necessary measures to ensure that the provisions of the Convention are effectively applied.
The Committee recalls that in its previous observation it had noted the draft Act on Trade Unions amending Act No. 2821 on trade unions and Act No. 2822 on collective agreements, strikes and lockouts. The Committee notes that this draft, renamed “Collective Labour Relations Act”, was submitted to the Prime Minister in October 2011 and was discussed again in a special committee. The Committee understands from the ITUC that this second draft has been condemned by several trade union organizations for containing regressive provisions compared to the existing law and to the first draft law discussed with social partners earlier in 2011. The Committee notes that the Collective Labour Relations Act was adopted by the Parliament on 18 October 2012. The Committee requests the Government to send a copy of the Collective Labour Relations Act, amending Acts Nos 2821 and 2822. It expresses the firm hope that the necessary amendments were made to the legislation, taking into account the comments of the Committee concerning remedies and compensation and free and voluntary collective bargaining.
Collective bargaining in the public service. The Committee recalls that it had previously noted that Act No. 5982 of 2010 repealed several provisions of the Constitution which previously restricted collective bargaining rights and granted, by virtue of its section 53, the right to conclude collective agreements to public servants and other public employees, and that these constitutional amendments would be followed by the relevant legislative amendments. The Committee notes that Act No. 6289, with significant amendments to Act No. 4688, has been adopted on 4 April 2012. It notes with satisfaction that this new Act addresses some of the issues the Committee has raised in the past, notably regarding the scope of collective bargaining which now extends not only to financial questions but to “social rights” (section 28 of Act No. 6289), the need for the parties to be able to hold full and meaningful negotiations over a period of time longer than that previously provided for (extended from 15 days to one month under section 31 of Act No. 6289), the removal of the possibility for the authorities to modify collective agreements signed by the parties and the change of scope of the law from collective “talks” to collective “agreements”. The Committee notes, however, that its observations have not been fully taken into account with regard to the need to ensure that: (i) the direct employer participates, alongside the financial authorities, in genuine negotiations with trade unions representing public servants not engaged in the administration of the State; and (ii) a significant role is left to collective bargaining between the parties. The Committee once again recalls that an additional issue to be overcome in order to allow for free and voluntary collective bargaining in the public sector is the recognition of the right to organize to a large number of categories of public employees not engaged in the administration of the State, such as civilian personnel in military institutions and prison guards, who are excluded from this right and, therefore, from the right to be represented in negotiations.
Finally, the Committee noted that in its statement before the Conference Committee in 2011, the Government referred to the adoption in February 2011 of an Act providing for a collective agreement premium for members of public servant trade unions and to the abrogation of a criticized provision concerning contract personnel in the public sector. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide a copy thereof.
© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer