Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1988, Publication: 75th ILC session (1988)

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

The Government has communicated the following information:

The Government wishes to inform that the Parliament has approved on 25 and on 27 May 1988 the Laws Nos. 3449 and 3451 containing amendments proposed both by the Government and by the legislators during the legislative process to the Laws Nos. 2821 and 2822.

It explains that the work on the amendments which has been carried out on a tripartite basis started immediately after the Government took office at the end of last year. The objective followed has been to adapt the existing industrial relations legislation to Turkey's international commitments without prejudice to the need for sound industrial peace. Utmost efforts have been deployed to incorporate in the amendments, to the extent possible and within the limits allowed by the Constitution, the views of all parties and the suggestions made by the ILO mission.

The Government states that the following elements have been taken into account: the shortcomings observed during almost five years of implementation of two Acts; the amendment proposals put forward by the workers and employers and conformity with the principles laid down by relevant ILO Conventions ratified by Turkey, as well as the relevant court decisions and the views of academics. With a view to protecting industrial peace, particular attention was paid to the preservation of the balancing role of the State in the relations between workers and employers as well as the codification requirements.

Within the context of the above approach, the following changes were made to the Trade Union Act No. 2821...

- conditions required for founding members will be simplified;

- it will be possible for the executive officers of the trade unions to assume functions in the management or audit boards of public undertakings and establishments;

- conditions required for being elected to the mandatory organs of the trade unions have been further facilitated;

- continuity has been established with respect to the duration of the functions of the shop stewards;

- possibility of being re-elected to the mandatory organs of trade unions has been increased from four to eight terms;

- the scope of the mandate for auditing the trade unions has been limited and clearly defined;

- conditions required for opening new trade union branches have been facilitated;

- persons carrying out religious functions and students will be able to join trade unions;

- in cases where an employer terminates the employment contract of a worker because of his membership to a trade union, the employer shall be liable to pay compensation which shall not be less than the worker's total annual wage;

- the definition of the political activities of the trade union will be clarified;

- trade unions will be authorised to spend a part of their revenues for social purposes;

- the provision which stipulates that the assets of dissolved organisations shall be transferred to the State Treasury will be repealed; the fate of the assets of dissolved organisations will be determined by the organisations themselves. If this cannot be materialised, or if the organisation is closed by a court decision, its assets shall be transferred to a fund to be administered on a tripartite basis and these funds shall be used for occupational orientation, vocational training and rehabilitation of the workers;

- trade unions will be audited once in each election period, instead of yearly auditing;

- members' contributions will also be paid to the trade unions which have obtained the certificate of competence;

- the shortcomings observed and the abuses made in the determination of the competent trade unions will be eliminated by amending some sections i favour of trade unions;

- the controversies faced in the acquisition of membership will be removed by assuring the right to the membership. Moreover, the inconveniences encountered by the trade unions in their organisation in the workplaces will be completely eliminated by repealing the obligation of the trade unions to transmit one copy of the workers' membership registration forms to the employer;

In the Collective Bargaining Strike and Lock-out Act No. 2822 the following changes have been made:

- the collective labour agreement will not be extended in cases where a competent trade union exists and the implementation will be brought in line with the collective labour agreement system;

- the scope of strike and lock-out prohibitions on certain activities and services has been further narrowed;

- the rules to be observed by the employers during a lawful strike have been clearly defined;

- the number of authorised strike pickets has been doubled;

- the provision concerning temporary strike prohibition applicable in a state of emergency or under the martial law has been annulled;

- the prohibition of forming groups around the establishment during a lawful strike or lock-out will be annulled;

- the possibility of having access to shelter for the strike pickets will be provided;

- the amount of fines to be paid by any employer recruiting a worker during a lawful strike will be increased;

- the Parliament has also annulled the provision granting authority to the Supreme Arbitration Board to renew any expiring collective labour agreement with the changes it deems necessary, in case a strike or a lock-out is not permitted, or whenever emergency administration rules apply, as in time of war or general or partial mobilisation;

- the composition of the Supreme Arbitration Board will be changed so as provide for equal numbers of representatives of workers, employers and government, under the chairmanship of the Chief Judge of the Labour Division of the Court of Appeal.

In addition a Government representative stated that his Government firmly believed in pursuing constructive dialogue with the ILO, and recalled that in its report, the Committee of Experts referred to Act. No 2822 on collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts, in particular to article 12 concerning numerical criteria required from unions in order to obtain collective bargaining certificates and article 33 concerning the possibility of imposing compulsory arbitration under certain conditions. These issues had been under consideration by the Conference Committee since 1984. On every occasion, the Government had informed the Committee extensively of the developments taking place in Turkey. In the dynamic process whereby important political, economic and social developments had taken place in Turkey in recent years a primary objective was giving priority attention to freedom. In this process the perfection of labour legislation had naturally been given due consideration. Within this framework, amendments were made in labour legislation in June 1986 and 1988, taking into account the views of the workers' and employers organisations. Since the International Labour Conference in 1987 Turkey had a particularly loaded political calendar which included an important national referendum in September 1987 resulting in the lifting of all the remaining restrictions on the participation of some political leaders in elections, which were in fact held immediately after this referendum. Acts Nos. 3449 and 3451 adopted on 25 and 27 May 1988 contained amendments to Acts Nos. 2821 and 2822 respectively on trade unions and on collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts. The Government representative stated that he was confident that the Committee of Experts would study these amendments carefully and refer to several of the improvements that these amendments contained in his written communications. The Government believed that the recent amendments together with the improvements already achieved in 1986 correspond to many aspects which had been previously raised in the present Committee with regard to Turkey's labour legislation. The new amendments also contained certain improvements which had not been discussed by the Conference Committee. The Government had been succesful in its efforts to honour its promises of reviewing and improving the labour legislation. The Government had primarily directed its efforts towards adapting the legislation to the changing needs and the new developments in that country. The views of the ILO had also been taken into consideration. As to the numerical criteria required from unions to negotiate collective agreements (article 12 of Act No. 2822, mentioned by the Committee of Experts), the Government representative stated that his Government had duly considered this issue, and had closely consulted the workers' and employers' organisations. The Government's position was that a social consensus on this issue would be a prerequisite for any legislative initiative. In the absence of any written request either from workers' or employers' organisations to amend the existing provisions concerning numerical criteria and in view of the insistent verbal representations of those organisations to maintain the existing provisions the Government had found no grounds at this stage for initiating any legislative modifications. What mattered was that the collective bargaining process had actually reached a level of unprecedented effectiveness in Turkey. There now existed in every branch of activity a number of trade unions which met the 10 per cent requirement and that these trade unions had been able to negotiate an increasing number of collective agreements concluded in 1964-1979 before the adoption of the new legislation, was 1,751 per year, whereas since the adoption of the present law, from 1984 to 1987 an average of 2,577 collective agreements had been signed each year. This constituted a solid indication that the machinery for voluntary negotiation of collective agreements was more fully used under the present legislation. As regards the comments of the Committee of Experts concerning the intervention of the Supreme Arbitration Board in the settlement of disputes (articles 33, Act No. 2822), the Government representative stated that this article had a very limited scope of application for the following reasons: it was provided only for exceptional cases of public health and national security; it could only be implemented if those exceptional circumstances continued to prevail; the Supreme Arbitration Board consisted of an equal number of representatives from the government and the employers' and workers' organisations, guaranteeing a balanced judgements; it did not only apply to strike but also to lockouts; and under the law, it was possible to lodge an appeal with the Administrative Court of Appeal, against the decrees of the Council of Ministers and thereby to request the suspensions of proceedings. This provision was also embodied in the national constitution. Article 33 had only been used by the Government once but before the Supreme Arbitration Court could intervene the parties concerned had reached agreement. The Government representative added that the right to strike was currently used very widely and was subject to no serious restrictions in Turkey. The Government representative provided some figures which illustrated a very considerable and gradual increase in the number of strikes since 1979. As a result of the recent amendments to Act No. 2822, 165,000 workers had obtained the right to strike following the lifting of the prohibition on strikes in certain activities. In conclusion, he stressed that freedom of association, collective bargaining and strikes had now materialised in Turkey to a much greater extent than before, and had certainly reached a respectable level compared to other member States of the ILO. He reiterated his Government's interest and determination in pursuing its efforts to achieve further progress and stated that his Government was also determined to maintain its fruitful co-operation with the ILO to achieve those objectives. The Government was confident that it could count on the ILO's constructive criticism as well as on its encouragement.

The Workers' members recalled that the issues of freedom of association and collective bargaining in Turkey had been discussed for quite a number of years. Turkey had been under martial law during which numerous trade union leaders were prosecuted and persecuted. They hoped that Turkey would shortly ratify Convention No. 87 and noted that this Convention was closely linked to Convention No. 98, the application of which was being discussed. They recalled that this case was not discussed in 1986 in view of the promises made by the Government, and that in 1987 this problem gave rise to a very long and difficult discussion that concluded with a statement that there were serious discrepancies between the Convention and national legislation and practice despite the previous promises that the Government had made on several occasions. It was stated that if these promises were not fulfilled in the near future, the Conference Committee would be obliged to use other measures. In this respect they underlined that there were still complaints against the Government of Turkey before the Committee on Freedom of Association, and that the new laws enumerated in the written communication of the Government which appeared to contain improvements, in fact perpetuated a totally deplorable situation. Finally, they requested the Worker member of Turkey to provide some additional information in this respect.

The Worker member of Turkey stated that the declaration by the Government representative did absolutely not reflect the real situation in Turkey. None of the amendments introduced responded to the comments of the supervisory bodies which had referred to basic provisions of the legislation that were not in line with the principles of the ILO. Once more the Government had not fulfilled the promises it had made in 1986 and 1987 when it had pledged to take the necessary steps to apply the Convention and the principles of freedom of association. Perhaps the Government had taken into consideration the observations of representatives of employers' and workers' organisations when it had elaborated these amendments, but it was obvious that these observations had generally been ignored and that the observations of the Confederation of Turkish Trade Unions were totally or almost totally ignored. These amendments had not solved the major problems: the exclusion of important categories of workers (public servants, teacher etc.) from the right to organise; the interference of the public authorities in trade union activities; the right to freely elect trade union representatives, the excessive restrictions on the right to strike and the problems affecting collective bargaining. As regards, for example, political activities of trade unions, or the so-called elimination of the provision that allows for temporary prohibition of strikes during emergencies or martial law - that the Government considers as amendments introducing improvements - the present situation was in fact no different at all from the one under the military government. In fact, the series of laws and decrees that had been introduced actually aggravated the situation, e.g. Decree No. 308 concerning State enterprises which prohibited their workers from exercising collective bargaining. Another government decree had established three employers' organisation for the public sector (all types of public institutions, State enterprises, etc.) and imposed compulsory affiliation to these organisations which depended on the Minister of State, and were led by high-level officials. The objective of these three organisations as mentioned in the Government's programme for 1988 was to carry out the functions previously assigned to the Government Committee for the co-ordination of Collective Agreements in the Public Sector with the aim of imposing the remuneration policy of the Government. There existed serious restrictions on the right to strike as well. The Government representative had said that the possibility of postponement of strikes had been used only on one occasion. This only proved that none of the strikes that had taken place had endangered the public health or national security. Furthermore, almost everything was considered to be essential service for the purposes of prohibiting the right to strike with the result that this right was in effect denied to about 500,000 workers. Solidarity strikes were also prohibited and so were go-slow action and general strikes. All violations of these prohibitions resulted in penal indictment. These restrictions had not existed before 1980. Finally, the speaker reiterated that nothing had improved and that there remained only empty promise. He requested the Government representative to indicate whether the Government considered itself at all bound by the principles of freedom of association embodied in the ILO Constitution.

The Workers' members considered that in the light of the supplementary information given by the Workers' member of Turkey it would have actually been better had those recent laws not been adopted at all. It was obvious that a profound change in the legislation was still necessary. The Workers' member referred to recent information from trade union sources and stressed that the new laws seriously restricted collective bargaining and trade union action. A few days ago, the European Confederation of Trade Unions had adopted a declaration on these points. The Workers' members added that Turkish trade unions were not allowed to draft their own statutes or freely elect their representatives; nor could they freely exercise their activities since it was possible to dissolve or suspend them by simple administrative order. The activity of DISK was in fact prohibited and the leaders of this organisation, who faced trial, or who were condemned because of their trade union activities, were unable to resume their trade union tasks. Under these conditions one should stress that the so-called improvements were really limited to a very small percentage of the points that had been mentioned in the course of ILO technical assistance, and that the new laws had considerably complicated the situation as regards the remaining points. Nor had there been any true tripartite consultations although this had been promised by the Government. Collective bargaining and trade union activity had been blocked through the interference of the authorities. Workers' organisations were unable to structure themselves in a logical way. Consequently, the new reforms did not really fulfil the promises of the Government and implied that the Conference Committee was back to square one.

The Employers' members summarised the questions raised in the observation of the Committee of Experts concerning the application of this Convention. The Committee of Experts had as yet not had the opportunity to examine the new laws adopted this year following tripartite consultation. In the previous year, the Committee of Experts had considered that certain improvements had been made in the legislation, but that restrictions had remained on free collective bargaining. If one compared the present situation to the one prevailing at the beginning of the discussions, it was obvious that there had been some progress. Free collective bargaining could only be achieved gradually, especially in a country that had just emerged from a very long period of martial law, a period that was radically different from the present as regards freedom of association. The Government representatives had provided recent figures that showed some results in the sense that the number of collective agreements had gradually increased. He had also stated that the procedure of compulsory arbitration had been applied only once. Under these conditions one did wonder why the Government did not repeal the provisions concerning compulsory arbitration, as requested by the Committee of Experts. In contrast, the employers did not believe that an increase in the number of strikes was a sign of progress. The Government representative and the Workers' member of Turkey had delivered radically different statements concerning the fulfilment of the promises of the Government as regards the application of the Convention, and it was not up to the Employers' members to decide who was right. It was obvious that was up to the Committee of Experts and not to the Conference Committee, to examine the new amendments in the new laws. On the other hand, the Employers' members viewed positively the lifting of the state of emergency and the holding of elections, which were linked to the topics referred to by the Committee of Experts, and that constituted progress towards democracy. In conclusion, they stressed that the remaining restrictions on the application of Convention No. 98 should be eliminated and that this should be achieved on tripartite basis.

The Worker member of Finland, speaking also on behalf of the Workers' members of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, recalled that the conclusions of the Committee of Experts pointed to the existence of serious limitations and contradictions between legislation and Convention No. 98, and that the Conference Committee had indicated the possibility of resorting to other measures if it found that there was lack of progress. The reply of the Government of Turkey contained some minor improvements, which were amendments to the Trade Union Act No. 2821 and to the Collective Bargaining Strike and Lockout Act No. 2822. These amendments were incorporated in Laws No. 3449 and 3451 adopted on 25 and 27 May 1988. The above-mentioned Workers' member had compared the amendments to these laws with the principles of Convention No. 98 and had concluded that these amendments did constitute some progress, but did not in any way satisfy the principles in Convention No. 98 and in the ILO Constitution relating to freedom of association and trade union rights. The Workers' member of Turkey had already pointed this out and the above-mentioned Workers' members associated themselves entirely with his comments. They reminded the present Committee that the 1982 Turkish Constitution also contained several provisions that were in contradiction to Convention No. 98 and the principle of freedom of association embodied in the ILO Constitution. As examples he cited section No. 51 prescribing that only employees with ten years' of service were entitled to be elected as trade union officials, section No. 22 prohibiting trade unions from participating in any political activities whatsoever, section No. 53 prescribing not more than one collective agreement per enterprise and section No. 54 prohibiting solidarity strikes, as well as several other provisions. In the Trade Union Act No. 2821 several provisions which were applied to trade unions subjected trade unions to supervision by governments, to police searches on union premises, and stipulated that trade union leaders had to seek the permission of the Ministry of the Interior before leaving Turkey on any trade union conference, that all press releases had to be submitted to the Public Prosecutor twenty-four hours in advance, and that all political activities were prohibited for trade unions. In conclusion, he reminded the present Committee that the Government representative had not indicated whether his Government intended to repeal these provisions; however, the above-mentioned Workers' members strongly felt this should be done as soon as possible.

The Worker member of the United Kingdom stated that when he first saw the list of amendments brought by the Government representative of Turkey, outlined in the written communication of the Government he did hope that the matter would finally be settled and that Turkey could be welcomed to the free world as a State having complete trade union freedoms. Of course, the Committee of Experts should examine all the new laws but that did not prevent the Conference Committee from expressing its views too. What the written communication of the Government revealed was interesting, but what it concealed was vital. He would like to ask several questions in this connection. First, did Turkey recognise the right of public servants to organise freely? The answer was no because the Workers' member of Turkey told the Committee that this was not so. The legal restrictions he had described affected some 1.8 million Turkish workers. To what extent were strikes affected by those restrictions? The Government representative had told the Conference Committee that only essential services were prohibited from striking. However, a closer look at the list of the essential service revealed that it covered water, electricity, gas, coal mining, land, sea and air transport systems, health services, chemist's shops, educational institutions, day nurseries, old-age homes, etc. In fact, strikes were either prohibited or seriously restricted for all public services. Second, did Turkey recognise the right of workers to chose their own trade union leaders? Perhaps it did, but he had noted one vital point. The law stipulated that a trade unionist who had spent more than six months in jail for offences under this law could not be elected as trade union leader or as trade union founder. Yet some of the most courageous, heroic and devoted trade unionists he had known had spent more than six months in jail, fighting for what they believed in. Third, did Turkey recognise the right of trade unions to establish their own constitutions, laws and regulations? The answer was, again, no. The Trade Unions Act in Turkey provided detailed model laws and rules that trade unions had to follow. In his opinion, this was contrary to the principles of freedom and trade union rights. So the Committee of Experts might eventually examine those new laws and give its opinion on them, but the present Committee could already state that they did not fully meet the request made by the Committee of Experts in its report. There had been great hope that after a period of dictatorship, one of the first things that Turkey would do as a free country, would be to restore trade union rights, because that was the hallmark of a true democracy. Yet he had to express his deep concern that the omens were not very good for trade unions in Turkey. The Government of Turkey was exhibiting the new laws almost like a proud father, but in his opinion, the legitimacy of the offspring had yet to be established. The Government had still a long way to go towards real progress, and one tentative, timid step in this direction was not enough.

The Worker member of Greece recalled that at this very time the Prime Minister of Turkey was on an official visit to Athens, and that everyone could imagine the significance of this event for the relations between Greece and Turkey. The Greek workers supported an improvement in these relations. Yet this spirit would not prevent the speaker from supporting the Workers' member of Turkey in its comments regarding legal restrictions and prohibitions on trade union activities in Turkey. In this respect be noted that a joint declaration had been adopted on 10 June 1988 in which the two main trade union organisations in Turkey, TURK-IS and DISK, declared that trade union organisations in Turkey were prohibited from functioning normally, and called for the presumption of all activities of DISK. The Government representative had told the Committee that the right to strike existed, that progress had been made, and that trade union freedoms existed as well in Turkey. The speaker asked whether the Government could indicate when DISK would be able to function again, and when would its assets that had been confiscated by the dictatorship be returned to it.

The Worker member of the United States was impelled to make several comments after the statements of the Vice-Chairman of the Workers' members and the Worker member of Turkey. The Workers' members always welcomed remedial measures to rectify persistent offences to international labour Conventions, and so they welcomed the steps taken by the Government of Turkey. Yet such remedial measures often contained hidden dangers, namely, that they were more cosmetic than real. An example was the provision enabling the Government of Turkey to prohibit or postpone any strike that appeared to be harmful to public health and national security. The Government representative stated that this provision had never been used, and should not give rise to concern. Yet the speaker felt deeply ill at ease with such a provision. He pointed to the existence of the Supreme Arbitration Court and its powers under Article 54 of the Turkish Constitution and stated that the very existence of this provision had a chilling effect and was a deterrent for any strikes. For that reason all those laws should be repealed.

The Worker member of Austria recalled that at about the same time that the Parliament of Turkey had adopted the two laws in May 1988, the report of the Committee on Freedom of Association was approved by the Governing Body of the ILO. This report cited Act No. 2821 among the laws needing review in order to bring it into line with Convention No. 98. Thus, the Committee on Freedom of Association expressed the same concerns as the Conference Committee. Consequently, when the Committee of Experts would analyse these laws, its conclusions would be obvious, that these laws go only half way towards meeting the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association and that the Government had only partly met these recommendations. In conclusion, he recalled that a number of public service trade unionists had been condemned under this law, yet no motives for this condemnation had been published, and they could not defend themselves. He asked the Government representative when these motives would be published.

The Employer member of Turkey considered that the criticisms which had been expressed during the discussion had not been justified. In this regard he cited two observations made by the Committee of Experts in their report: (1) that the Government should adopt legislative amendments to promote collective bargaining; and, (2) the Government should furnish information on the evolution of the situation in this regard. The speaker noted that on the one hand a new law amending several provisions of the law on collective agreements had just come into force. Therefore, the first request of the Committee of Experts had been acted upon. On the other hand, it was necessary to await the opinion of the Committee of Experts on this new law before adopting Conclusions in this respect. He felt that it was preferable to await the information furnished by the Committee of Experts next year on the legitimacy of these new laws.

The Worker member of the Netherlands noted the information given by the Government in its written communication, particularly the long list of changes made to the Trade Union Act, No. 2821. He observed that this list did not contain the repealing of restrictions on trade union freedoms; it contained only the easing of such restrictions. In this regard he pointed to terms such as "conditions will be simplified" and "further facilitated". This easing of impediments was not enough when the legislation was tested against the provisions of Convention No. 98. He further noted with respect to the experiences of the last few years in this Committee that some Governments had received a special paragraph while others, whose behaviour had not been much better, had avoided this special paragraph by handing in lengthy replies, by participating in the dialogue in a soft spoken and sympathetic way and by making one small promise or expressing vague expectations. He stressed that governments should be evaluated on the basis of facts and not on the basis of their presentation.

The Government representative noted that, with respect to the observations of the Committee of Experts, tripartite consultations had been undertaken with regard to the points raised in the report. The Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister had discussed these matters with representatives of the Workers' and Employers' organisations. The outcome of these consultations had not had an impact on the two points raised in the report of the Committee of Experts because: firstly, both the Workers' and Employers' organisations had insisted that the Government maintain the positions of numerical criteria for qualifying for collective bargaining; and, secondly, with regard to the Supreme Arbitration Board intervention, the constitutional provision could not be amended until due process had been completed. With regard to the observations raised outside the scope of Convention No. 98, a very distorted picture had been painted before this Committee. Important progress had been made in the laws and it would be premature in this Committee to pass any judgement on the merits of the new amendments before the Committee of Experts had actually examined their contents in a very objective and impartial way. In concluding, he cited figures which indicated the extent to which the tripartite consultations actually reflected the Turkish workers' views in the new amendments. In Law No. 2821, out of a total of 18 recommendations made by the Turkish workers' associations, 11 had been accommodated, either partially or completely, in the new amendments. Furthermore, the Government brought four amendments which had not been raised by the workers' associations. Under Act No. 2822, out of 17 recommendations made by the workers' associations, seven of them had been accommodated. Furthermore the Government brought four other improvements which had not been raised by the workers' associations. Therefore, 52 per cent of the workers' recommendations had been accommodated in the new amendments.

The Workers' members welcomed the frank and open dialogue which occurred in the present Committee in this case. The Workers' members therefore proposed, in the light of the interventions by the Employers' members and the Employer member of Turkey, the following conclusion:

The members of the Committee had been able to have a dialogue on the subject of two Acts adopted at the end of May which should provide solutions to the majority of concerns that had been expressed over a period of years. The discussion in the Committee showed that there was a number of positive elements but also a large number of unsatisfactory points. As the Acts had not been in force until May, the Committee of Experts was requested to examine them closely and compare them with the promises made earlier with the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association as well as with those of the ILO which provided assistance in this respect. Real tripartite consultation should be resumed and the Government should be prepared to revise the present Acts to align them more fully with Convention No. 98 as well as with the principle of freedom of association.

The Workers' members formally proposed that these conclusions be included in a special paragraph. This request was justified in light of the importance of this case which had been the subject of discussion for a number of years. A special paragraph did not contain a judgement or condemnation; it contained positive as well as negative aspects. The objective of these conclusions and their inclusion in a special paragraph was to give a mission to the Committee of Experts and to indicate clearly to the Government the orientation of new tripartite dialogue.

The Employers' members noted that a number of questions that had been raised concerning this case had still not been completely solved. However, the focal point in this case was now the new Acts which had been adopted and they would have to be examined by the Committee of Experts. The Employers' members were convinced that the Committee of Experts, when examining this case next time, would not only look at the Acts but would also bear in mind the views and information mentioned in the course of this discussion. With regard to the conclusions proposed by the Workers' members, the Employers' members were not able to support the proposal in its present form, especially if it was to be included in a special paragraph, because it contained an evaluation of a new Act which the Experts had not been able to examine.

The Workers expressed their regret over the Employers' members' failure to agree to the proposed conclusion and its inclusion in a special paragraph. Although they would not call for a vote, they indicated their intention to initiate an information campaign, through regional and international trade unions, on their position concerning this situation and its examination in this Committee.

The Government representative could not fully agree with the merits of the proposal. Firstly, because there had been no conclusion reached in this Committee on the matters contained in the proposal. Secondly, because it would not contribute to the undertaking of tripartite consultations as such consultations would be pursued in any case.

The Worker member of Austria addressed a question to the Government representative of Turkey concerning information as to when the grounds for the ruling on the dissolution of the DISC organisation would be published.

The Government representative replied that, according to relevant authorities, the text of the decisions together with the justifications would be published by the end of the summer, 1988.

The Committee noted the written and oral information supplied by the Government and the detailed discussion which took place within the Committee. It noted, in particular, that Parliament recently had approved amendments to the trade union legislation, which will be examined by the Committee of Experts on the basis of the previous discussions held in this Committee, the recommendations of the ILO missions, the promises made by the Government and the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association. It hoped that these amendments would meet the concerns expressed last year by the Committee of the Conference. It further expressed the firm hope that, in view of the fact that serious divergencies had existed for many years, the Government would soon take all necessary measures, after real tripartite consultation, to give full satisfaction to the comments of the Committee of Experts and to ensure full compliance with the Convention, both in law and practice.