Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1998, Publication: 86th ILC session (1998)

Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Türkiye (Ratification: 1952)

The Government has supplied the following information:

The Government would like to inform the Committee that a bill amending Public Servants Act No. 657 was enacted by Parliament on 12 June 1997 (Act No. 4275) and came into force as of 17 June 1997. This Act inserts a new article 22 into Act No. 657 to read as follows:

"Public servants may establish and join trade unions and higher-level organizations in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and its specific legislation."

The adoption of Act No. 4275 should be regarded as conclusive of the ongoing efforts to bring the national legislation in conformity with the Turkish Constitution as amended by Act No. 4121 of 23 July 1995. The specific legislation concerning the public servants' trade unions to which reference is made in the new article 22 of Act No. 657 has been in the pipeline for some time. For procedural necessities, after the formation of a new Government in early July 1997, a draft bill concerning public servants' trade unions has been prepared by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security and communicated again to the Ministries, as well as to the social partners to have their comments and views before it is resubmitted to Parliament. The draft bill may be laid open to further discussion, if the need arises, within the Government and between the Government, social partners and other related parties before its submission to Parliament.

A further step taken on this matter was the issuance of a circular dated 20 November 1997, by the Office of the Prime Minister to all governmental organizations and agencies which referred to Turkey's contractual obligations under ILO Conventions Nos. 87, 98 and 151 and to the ongoing legislation in preparation and ordered:

-- to make the necessary deductions on the payrolls for the union membership fees;

-- to avoid bringing obstacles against the creation of new organizations and their activities;

-- to avoid banning the convening of their general congresses, the distribution of informative documents about their organizations and activities or the organization of social, cultural and artistic activities for the members;

-- to stop subjecting the union executives to disciplinary proceedings for their union-related activities;

-- to stop all law enforcement interference into legitimate union activities;

-- to establish dialogue and cooperation with the unions to take their opinions and proposals;

-- to extend all necessary care, sensitivity and good offices at all levels to the union activities of the public servants employed at governmental and other public agencies.

As an indication of its determination to improve the legislation concerning labour relations, the Government would also like to inform the Committee that Act No. 4277 dated 26 June 1997: (i) lifted the ban on the political activities of the trade unions and their confederations (article 37 of Act No. 2821); (ii) repealed the first paragraph of article 39 of Act No. 2821, which prohibited the nomination of candidates by trade unions and confederations to the organs of public occupational and professional organizations or their higher bodies, and any activity or propaganda for or against any of the candidates; and (iii) abolished the audit of the trade unions and confederations by the Government (article 47) and abrogated the requirement of depositing the revenues within 30 days of receipt in a bank where the State holds more than half of its capital as prescribed in article 43.

Regarding the protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, the Government refers the Committee to articles 29, 30 and 31 of Act No. 2821 and the sanctions stipulated therein. (The texts of Act No. 4277 of 1997 and the circular of 20 November 1997 have been sent to the ILO.)

In addition, a Government representative recalled that the report of the Committee of Experts concerning the application of the Convention by his country addressed four issues: the alleged insufficiency of the protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination; certain limitations on collective bargaining; the alleged denial of collective negotiation rights of public servants; and the collective bargaining rights of workers in export processing zones (EPZs).

With regard to the allegation that protection against acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment was insufficient and that the burden of proof rested with the worker, he specified that the fine envisaged in such cases was not less than half of the prevailing monthly wage. Although, according to the general principles of law, the burden of proof rested with the plaintiff, an amendment made to Act No. 2822 in 1988 stipulated that communication to the employer by the union of a worker's acquisition of membership should be delayed until it could have no adverse effect at all on the right to organize and bargain collectively. In the event of the dismissal of a worker due to union-related activities, in addition to the rights conferred by labour legislation, such as severance indemnities and notice pay, the employer was required to pay compensation which was not less than the worker's total annual wages. This compensation was payable not only in the case of dismissal, but also for other acts of anti-union discrimination, for example with regard to the distribution of work or promotion. He added that various rulings by the courts showed that this type of compensation was granted more frequently than had been claimed in the report of the Committee of Experts. Copies of these judicial decisions would be forwarded to the Office. He also explained the specific protection provided for trade union officials, which included their reinstatement in their previous or similar jobs within one month of their request for reinstatement provided they applied to their previous employer within three months of losing their positions in the trade union. The relevant legal provisions and the many judgements handed down by labour courts attested to the protection contained in Turkish law. However, until the adoption of enabling legislation consistent with Convention No. 158, shop stewards were the only category granted complete job security, including reinstatement. Work was under way on the formulation of the necessary legislation, which envisaged placing the burden of proof on the employer.

With regard to the alleged limitations on collective bargaining in the country, and particularly the statement that confederations were prohibited from collective bargaining, he affirmed that, in the same way as national trade union centres in many other countries, confederations were horizontal structures whose main motive was to represent labour movements at the national and international levels. Their heterogeneous structure did not lend itself to collective bargaining along vertical occupational or industrial lines. They could, however, coordinate the bargaining activities of their affiliates or even play an effective role in the conclusion of collective agreements. In response to the statement that industry-wide bargaining was not permitted, he pointed out that, although not mentioned as a distinct level of bargaining in the legislation, multi-employer agreements often covered large segments of the same industry and as such served the same function as industry-wide bargaining. On the other hand, enterprise agreements, particularly in the public sector, could cover a whole industry, such as the railways. Nevertheless, it was true that only one collective agreement was permitted at a given level. He specified that the dual system of industry and establishment-level bargaining which had existed before 1983 had led to various difficulties and abusive practices involving the conclusion of successive local agreements. Moreover, Act No. 2822 envisaged the extension by the Government of collective agreements to other workplaces throughout an industry, provided they fulfilled certain conditions.

Turning to the question of alleged ceilings on indemnities, he stated that the only ceiling imposed was on the severance indemnity. As a result of the absence of job security in the past, the provision of enhanced income security to workers in the event of dismissal had resulted in severance indemnities being increased to unprecedented levels through collective bargaining. A ceiling had therefore been applied by law, which was raised every six months according to certain criteria. Even so, workers appeared to enjoy rights in this respect which were greater than in many other countries. Moreover, no ceiling had been applied to notice pay, which had been raised to extremely high levels in some major collective agreements.

With regard to the limitation on the duration of collective negotiations, which could only last up to 60 days, he said that, following that period, the parties were free to continue negotiations during the mediation stage, as well as during strike action, which was entirely open-ended.

On the question of repealing the double criteria required for the granting of bargaining authorization, the Government was continuing to endeavour to address the issues, but needed to seek the consent of the social partners to do so. The employers had expressed their willingness to lift the double criteria, but the labour confederations had not yet reached a consensus on its abolition.

With reference to the right to organize and collective bargaining of public servants, he stated that the draft Bill formulated in accordance with Convention No. 151 and the Turkish Constitution, as amended in 1995, had been submitted to the Grand National Assembly. In addition to guaranteeing freedom of association for public servants, the Bill envisaged judicial appeal mechanisms and an impartial conciliation board. The provisions of the Bill had been debated extensively in Parliament and nearly half of them had been approved. It was expected that the remaining part would also be debated and enacted. In the meantime, an amendment to the Public Servants' Act No. 657 had already lifted the ban on their right to organize. It should be noted in this connection that workers employed in the public sector under employment contracts had enjoyed the same rights as private sector workers from the beginning of the free collective bargaining system. Contract personnel employed in public economic enterprises would be covered by the forthcoming legislation on public servants' unions, since they were considered to be public officials employed in the continuous and essential services of the State. It should also be recalled that their number was decreasing as the privatization process gained momentum. In the meantime, many public servants had already established their own unions. There were currently three active public servants' confederations and numerous unions and branch unions. A further positive step had been the issue of a circular by the office of the Prime Minister in November 1997, referring to Turkey's obligations under Conventions Nos. 87, 98 and 151, ordering the administrative authorities to make the necessary deductions for union membership dues, to avoid bringing obstacles against new public servants' unions and their activities and to establish dialogue and cooperation with these unions.

On the question of EPZs, he noted that under Act No. 3218 of 1985, which permitted the formation of free trade zones, the right to organize and bargain collectively was protected; however, within ten years of the establishment of the zones collective bargaining should take place, but any deadlock had to be referred to compulsory arbitration. He added that these provisions would expire in the year 2000 in the Aegean Free Trade Zone, which employed some 90 per cent of all the workers concerned.

In conclusion, as he had foreseen in his statement to the Committee last year, Act No. 4277 of 1997 had lifted the ban on the political activities of trade unions and their leaders. It had also repealed the provisions concerning the audit of unions and confederations, in accordance with the requirements of the Convention. Furthermore, Parliament had approved the ratification of Conventions Nos. 29 and 138, and was considering the ratification of Convention No. 159. As a result, Turkey would soon have ratified all seven core Conventions. As an indication of its determination to improve labour legislation, the Government had established a tripartite committee in May 1998, in addition to the Economic and Social Council, to promote dialogue between the partners in the industrial relations system, in accordance with Convention No. 144, which had also been ratified by Turkey. Despite the difficulties faced by the minority coalition government, Turkey had therefore demonstrated its continuing commitment to bring its industrial relations system into conformity with ILO standards. On the 75th anniversary of the founding of the Turkish secular Republic, it had therefore reaffirmed its commitment to social progress.

The Workers' members thanked the Government representative for the oral and written information. The Committee was discussing the application of the Convention in the country for the sixth time since 1991; it had discussed the application of Convention No. 87 in 1997. For some years the Government had demonstrated a more constructive attitude towards standards and the supervisory system, as was witnessed by the ratification of Convention No. 87 in 1993. But ratification alone was not enough. Serious divergencies between the law and practice and the Convention had been identified by the Committee of Experts over many years. Some of the legislative provisions in question had been amended, but the various laws still regulated the exercise of trade union rights in detail. They aimed at controlling collective bargaining rather than promoting it. The draft law on trade unions for public servants, which aimed at covering all public workers including those not engaged in the administration of the State, appeared to have the same approach. This had been noted by a mission of the European Confederation of Trade Unions which took place in February 1998. However, the Government indicated that this draft could be the subject of fresh deliberations with the trade union organizations. They insisted that the Government amend that draft, thus proving in a concrete manner its more positive attitude towards standards, and it should transmit to the Office the opinions collected during the consultations with the workers' organizations. A simple circular, such as that of 20 November 1997, was not sufficient to ensure the protection required by the Convention. The Committee of Experts raised other major points, yet the Government had not sent a report. It emphasized shortcomings in the protection afforded against anti-union discrimination in terms of the procedure, the burden of proof, the lack of an obligation to reinstate and the level of compensation. In addition, the Act permitted numerous restrictions on collective bargaining through the introduction of ceilings or the exclusion of certain subjects from the matters which could be negotiated. The procedures were very strict, with recourse to compulsory arbitration coming into play after 60 days. The double numerical requirement for being able to bargain -- that of having 10 per cent coverage at the branch level and 50 per cent at the level of the enterprise -- constituted a considerable limit on collective bargaining. Moreover, the fact that negotiation was limited to the level of the enterprise meant that many workers in small and medium-sized firms were excluded from the protection afforded by collective agreements. Finally, there was the problem of the free export zones which had been established between 1987 and 1995 and where compulsory arbitration had been imposed for ten years. The Government therefore had much to do to bring its legislation and practice into conformity with the Convention. It should be instructed to amend its legislation without delay, in consultation with the workers' and employers' organizations. It should also ask for the technical assistance of the Office in this task, as suggested by the Committee of Experts and this Committee in its previous conclusions. A detailed report should be furnished so that the supervisory bodies would be in a position to follow closely developments in the situation.

The Employers' members noted the report of the Committee of Experts related to four main points. The first point referred to protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee of Experts had noted the allegations made by a workers' organization that in case of discrimination at the time of recruitment, the legal fine was too low and the burden of proof rested with the worker. The Employers' members were of the view that according to general principles of civil law and a democratic society built upon such principles, the burden of proof could not be reversed since it always lay with the plaintiff. With regard to the restrictions on free collective bargaining, the prevailing restrictions on confederations to bargain collectively were a minor point since this did not occur in practice. As for the problem of the existing dual criteria of representativity, the Government had already indicated that it was ready to change this requirement but that there was no consensus on this point amongst the social partners. Regarding the denial of collective bargaining rights of public servants, the Employers' members pointed out that this was merely a question of amending national legislation since this right was already provided for in the Constitution. The Government had shown its willingness to enact further legal provisions which would lead to collective bargaining rights for public servants. Therefore, this Committee should wait for the comments of the Committee of Experts on the forthcoming information from the Government on this issue. With regard to the issue of compulsory arbitration, the Employers' members felt this matter could only be evaluated once the Committee of Experts obtained information on the number of free trade zones, their size, etc. Therefore, the Government should be requested to provide the relevant information on this matter.

An Employer member of Turkey made some additional remarks to the intervention of the Employers' members. He took note of the observations of the Committee of Experts as well as the statements given by the Government representative. He said that important developments had taken place in Turkey. The Turkish Confederation of Employers (TISK) had stressed in prior statements that the provisions of Convention No. 98 were applied in practice. A comparison of national labour legislation with the provisions of the Convention showed that there was sufficient protection in respect of the right to organize. However, some problems remained regarding the practical application of the legislation. In this connection, he raised three points. Referring to alleged acts of anti-union discrimination, he stated that article 10 of the Constitution provided for equality of every person, irrespective of race, language, or religion and article 51 of the Constitution protected persons against refusal to employ them on account of their trade union membership. Moreover, section 31 of the Act on collective bargaining provided for the same protection as set out in the Constitution. Therefore, workers should not be dismissed or discriminated against on account of their trade union membership. In respect of cases of dismissal on grounds of trade union membership, section 31 (subsection 6) of the Act on collective bargaining imposed a fine on the employer which was equivalent to at least a year's salary of the worker dismissed. In conclusion, he felt that Turkish legislation was rather broad in this respect. However, in practice these legal provisions were not effective since the legislation in respect of protection against (unjustified) dismissals had some gaps. Turning to the limitations on collective bargaining, he stated that the percentage of workers organized in a trade union had increased considerably from 53 per cent to 63 per cent and that the number of trade unions had decreased from 750 to 75 through the requirement of the dual criteria of representativity. Therefore, the Turkish Confederation of Employers was in favour of retaining the existing dual criteria. With regard to the collective bargaining rights of public servants, important developments had occurred in this area. The Turkish Parliament had recently repealed the prohibition on public servants from organizing in trade unions. Under section 22 of the Act on public servants, as amended, public servants had the right to establish and join trade unions. Moreover, Parliament had recently adopted 25 provisions of a Bill respecting the right to organize of public servants. The Government should be encouraged to adopt the second part of the latter Bill as well.

The Worker member of Turkey thanked the Standards Department, the Committee of Experts and the Workers' members for the support given to Turkey's democratic struggle, which had culminated last year in major changes and improvements to the legislation concerning a number of issues that had been criticized by the Conference Committee. The amendment of the Trade Unions Act had led to a considerable improvement, bringing the legislation in harmony with Convention No. 87 with regard to political activity and some other areas. He believed that the report of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1810, a representation presented by his organization, as well as the deliberations of the Conference Committee in June 1997, had contributed considerably to this process. There were, however, still many areas where the current legislation violated Convention No. 87, especially with respect to the right to strike. Although his union's criticisms concerning violations of Convention No. 98 were serious, he stressed that Turkey was the most democratic and the only secular country in the region and possessed the democratic means of struggle to bring domestic legislation into conformity with the Convention.

With respect to the first point made by the Committee of Experts, the problems persisted. The protection afforded by current legislation was far from sufficient in respect of acts of anti-union discrimination. In case of discrimination at the time of recruitment, the legal fine was to be not less than US$70 and the burden of proof rested with the victim. There was no job security in spite of the fact that Convention No. 158 had been ratified on 4 January 1995. The Committee on Freedom of Association, in its 1996 report concerning the representation made by his organization, concluded that: "The Committee strongly urges the Government to take the necessary measures to guarantee workers effective protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in conformity with the international undertakings it made in ratifying Convention No. 98", and "The Committee notes with interest that, according to the Government, the Labour Act will be amended to allow reinstatement of workers in their jobs and to ensure the protection of workers against all acts of anti-union discrimination (including dismissal) in accordance with Convention No. 98."

Although the Government's comments referred to dated from 15 September 1995, today, almost three years later, no such legislation had been promulgated. With regard to the prohibition of dismissals due to trade union activities contained in the Trade Unions Act, he asked the Government representative to inform this Conference Committee of the number of cases brought to justice. In his opinion, everyday experience demonstrated that those provisions of the Act were completely impotent in preventing acts of anti-union discrimination. There were no Bills pending in Parliament to provide protection against dismissal for trade union officials, other than shop stewards in the workplaces. Concerning the second point, there were no improvements made or envisaged or discussed in Parliament concerning existing limitations on the right to bargain collectively. He recalled the legally imposed ceilings in collective agreements concerning bonuses. The Government had not fulfilled its obligations nor honoured its promises to encourage and promote voluntary bargaining. With respect to the third point, he regretted that in 1997 only one improvement had been made to the Civil Servants' Act, namely the amendments stipulating that civil servants, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and the relevant Act, could establish trade unions and higher-level organizations and become members of them. However, the Bill currently discussed in Parliament restricted the right to bargain collectively of civilian public servants employed in the armed forces and of prison wardens, by prohibiting their right to organize. The Bill envisaged only collective negotiation without any binding effect. As the Government representative had acknowledged, Convention No. 151 and not this Convention had been taken as the point of reference in the drafting of the Bill. He reminded the Government of Article 1 of Convention No. 151 and the obligation on the part of the Government to draft the Bill in accordance with the present Convention.

Public servants were deprived of the right to bargain collectively since any agreement between the parties had to be presented to the Council of Ministers for approval. As for the fourth point, he again regretted that there had been no improvement. Due to the wide range of prohibitions of the right to strike in areas which were not essential services, as defined by the ILO, compulsory arbitration was imposed; it severely curtailed the right to bargain collectively.

This violation also occurred in free trade zones, the number of which was on the increase. Of the nine free trade zones currently operating, seven were subject to compulsory arbitration in case of interest disputes during collective bargaining. Thus, it was not only the Aegean Free Trade Zone, to which the Government representative had referred. As of 1998, the number of enterprises in these free trade zones was 1,685. Regretting that the Government had not taken the necessary measures to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention, he urged it to do so, in order that the discrepancies between the Convention and the legislation would be removed.

The Worker member of Norway speaking on behalf of the Nordic Workers' group (Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden and Iceland) recalled that they had been actively involved in supporting the democratic labour legislation in Turkey for years through the ILO and through Nordic cooperation with the Turkish trade union movement. She noted with great interest the points raised by the Committee of Experts, especially the requests made for more information on the measures taken to encourage and promote voluntary collective bargaining in accordance with Article 4 of Convention No. 98. She expressed her concern about the grave violations of Convention No. 98 in the many free trade zones where the Government had accepted compulsory arbitration in cases of disputes during collective bargaining for a period of ten years following the establishment of a free trade zone. She insisted that these restrictions laid upon such negotiations were completely incompatible with Convention No. 98. The Government had conveyed during this meeting that these restrictions would come to an end in the year 2000. Her question then was: would this also be the case for all free trade zones established more recently? She requested the Government to provide detailed information in this respect.

The Worker member of Germany referred to the right of public servants to organize. He mentioned a public gathering initiated by four big Turkish trade unions in collaboration with the European Trade Union. At this occasion, unjustified limitation on collective bargaining had been claimed. Furthermore, the Government had been urged to revise its legislation in this respect. Consultations, which had been carried out, led to positive results. However, the problem remained the same in substance. The Bill which had been elaborated still provided for limitations on collective bargaining, since only wages could be the subject of collective bargaining and sections 30 and 31 stipulated that only higher-level organizations of employers and workers could be admitted to collective bargaining. When an agreement had been achieved, it had to be submitted to the Council of Ministers for approval. In conclusion, he was of the opinion that these examples showed the need for the Government to take further steps in order to comply with the provisions of Convention No. 98.

The Worker member of France considered that developments were too slow in Turkey regarding the right to collective bargaining and that protection against anti-trade union discrimination remained insufficient. In his view labour law should be one which protected workers and in this respect a transfer of the burden of proof in cases of anti-trade union discrimination was a principle of equity. He added that freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining should be recognized for public servants and that confederations should have the right to bargain collectively on questions of interest that were shared by all workers. Finally, he supported the conclusions of the Workers' members and welcomed the undertaking by the Government to ratify all of the fundamental Conventions, but emphasized that such ratifications should also be accompanied by a will to implement them.

The Worker member of the Netherlands, referring to the numerical criteria currently provided for in national legislation, indicated that the Government had not mentioned the real irritant behind this dual criteria. The Government had resorted to a rather strange argument that it could not get rid of this requirement because of opposition from the trade unions and employers' organizations. He pointed out that the real issue was that this dual criteria was in violation of Convention No. 98 and therefore the Government should do something about it. Since the Government stated that it was hesitant to do so because of the social partners' opposition to any action to this effect, he wished to know whether the general policy of the Government was to seek the consent of the social partners before amending labour legislation. If this was not the Government's policy, then he did not see why the Government referred to the opposition of the social partners as an obstacle to taking any action in this area.

The Worker member of Italy mentioned the progress that had been accomplished in Turkey concerning the right to collective bargaining and indicated that the Organization of European Trade Unions had also been able to note certain steps forward in this respect. He noted, however, the problems related to export processing zones and recalled that there were ten such zones in Turkey which covered a large territory. He queried how many workers were affected by this problem and hoped that the ILO could examine this issue further. Regarding the right to strike, he considered that there were still too many restrictions imposed on the modalities for exercising this right in the sectors where such a right existed, including recourse to compulsory arbitration. Finally, he encouraged the Government to carry out consultations on issues of industrial relations particularly as Turkey had ratified Convention No. 144.

The Government representative of Turkey made the following points. With regard to comments that discrepancies existed between national legislation and practice, he pointed out that this was not true. Whatever legislation that existed was being applied. There were of course minor points of discrepancies between the national legislation and Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. However, his Government was undertaking efforts to do away with these discrepancies and each year an improvement could be noted in this respect. With regard to comments that legislation was too detailed, he indicated that this phenomenon stemmed from the legislative process in Turkey. It was also due to the fact that the trade union movement was relatively young. Finally, the legislation dated back 70 years and was based on foreign models. The allegations of insufficient protection against acts of anti-union discrimination were unfounded. Apart from legal provisions in this regard, a substantial number of judicial decisions had been handed down with respect to compensation granted to workers dismissed on account of trade union activities. With regard to ceilings imposed on various indemnities, he pointed out that a bonus was not considered as an indemnity. With the granting of fringe benefits, these ceilings had been partly counterbalanced. As to the criticism that workers in small and medium-sized firms were excluded from collective bargaining, he stated that there were no numerical requirements in Turkish law in this respect, that "enterprise agreements" were in fact the exception and that establishment-level bargaining was the rule in Turkey. He also emphasized that the allegation that recourse to compulsory arbitration after 60 days of negotiations was not correct: on the contrary, the right to strike was the rule after that period, with the exception of compulsory arbitration only for essential services where there were strike bans. Concerning free trade zones, the provisions applying in Aegean Free Trade Zone, which employed the great majority of workers, would expire in the year 2000. As for the other free trade zones, they only employed a fraction of the workers located in the main free trade zone. His Government would communicate the actual number of workers employed in such zones in a report to the ILO. He asserted that free collective bargaining took place but that, in the event of a deadlock, compulsory arbitration was imposed in respect of only one-fifth of all unionized workers. The others enjoyed the right to strike. With regard to public servants, it was important to distinguish between the one million public sector workers, who were covered by the same law as private sector workers, and those public servants who did not enjoy the same rights in line with Article 6 of Convention No. 98. His Government nevertheless intended to establish a personnel reform law with a view to clarifying their status. In reply to the question posed by the Worker member of the Netherlands, he indicated that the Government did not have to seek the consent of the social partners to amend legislation. However, his Government had consulted the social partners on this issue because the 10 per cent representativity requirement was linked to labour peace in Turkey. This issue, which had many political ramifications, had to be dealt with cautiously. Otherwise, social tensions would rise.

The Committee took note of the written information supplied by the Government and of the statement made by the Government representative as well as of the discussion that took place thereafter. The Committee recalled with concern that this case had been discussed by the Conference Committee on a number of occasions and pointed out, once again, that for a number of years the Committee of Experts insisted on the need to strengthen the protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination, the need to eliminate restrictions on collective bargaining resulting from the double criteria of representativity imposed on trade unions to be able to bargain collectively with the employers, the importance of granting workers in the public sector the right to bargain collectively and the need to lift the imposition of compulsory arbitration in free export processing zones for the settlement of collective labour disputes. The Committee welcomed the information that Act No. 4275 of June 1997 has been promulgated to recognize freedom of association for the civil servants. The Committee expressed the firm hope that the draft legislation now in preparation would aim at promoting and encouraging free collective bargaining between civil servants' organizations and state employers so as to regulate the terms and conditions of employment of this category of workers, with the only possible exception of public servants engaged in the administration of the State. Furthermore, the Committee insisted on the importance of a full application of all the Articles of this fundamental Convention and it urged the Government to take all the necessary measures to eliminate the remaining discrepancies in this regard in law and in practice to achieve full conformity with the requirements of the Convention. The Committee trusted that the Government would supply a detailed report on the concrete measures actually taken to bring the legislation and the practice into complete conformity with the requirements of the Convention on all the questions raised by the Committee of Experts at an early date. It reminded the Government again, as in the previous year, that it could avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office.