Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2013, Publication: 102nd ILC session (2013)

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

A Government representative expressed his Government’s deep regret at his country being included in the final list of individual cases for Convention No. 98. The Committee’s decision undermined the credibility of the supervisory mechanism, implying that political considerations outweighed substantive and technical aspects. The decision of the Committee was contradictory since major progress and reforms had been achieved in the area of labour legislation on the basis of which the Committee of Experts had expressed its satisfaction with regard to the application of the Convention. He indicated that these legislative reforms showed the commitment of the Government to apply the Convention. The Government representative indicated that progress included amendments to the national Constitution in 2010, which had paved the way for reforms in labour legislation including the adoption of Act No. 6356 on trade unions and collective agreements, and amendments to Act No. 4688 on public servants’ trade unions, which had been sent to the ILO. The amendments to Act No. 4688 enabled representatives of civil servants to negotiate and sign collective agreements. Furthermore, the scope of unionization in the public sector had been extended by reducing the exceptions provided for in law, and following a recent decision of the Constitutional Court, the ban on trade union rights for civilian personnel working at the military institutions had been eliminated. According to the Government representative, the most important changes had been made through the adoption of Act No. 6356, which had not only replaced the trade union legislation imposed by the military, but had also created conditions for more democratic and free industrial relations. The new features of the Act included: (i) the extension of the scope of application of the right to organize to self-employed workers; (ii) the repeal of restrictions on the establishment, composition and requirements to be a founding member of a trade union; (iii) the simplification of the procedure for the establishment of trade unions; (iv) the reorganization or reduction in the number of branches of activity from 28 to 20; (v) the repeal of the requirement for notarial attestation to join or resign from a trade union; (vi) the authorization of multiple trade union memberships for workers employed at different workplaces in the same branch of activity; (vii) the determination by the trade union statute of the maximum amount of union dues; (viii) the authorization of maintenance of membership during temporary unemployment; (ix) the extension of authorized international activities of trade unions; (x) the separation of individual liability from that of the legal personality of the trade union; (xi) the financial auditing by independent chartered accountants; (xii) the strengthening of freedom of association; and (xiii) the free determination of affiliation with a branch of activity by trade unions. Furthermore, the Act had introduced major improvements for collective agreements, and had thereby addressed the comments made by the Committee of Experts in its report, namely through: (i) the enabling of multilevel collective agreements via framework agreements; (ii) the establishment of a legal framework for the regulation of group collective agreements; (iii) the guarantee of the continuity of collective agreement after a full or partial transfer of business ownership; (iv) the reduction in the scope of strike bans; (v) the lifting of restrictions on various forms of strikes, industrial actions and picketing; (vi) the immunity of trade union liability for damages at workplaces during strikes; (vii) the authorization of all confederations to be represented before the Higher Board of Arbitration; and (viii) the replacement of prison sentences by administrative fines for certain infringements included in the previous Act.

With regard to the critical observations made by the Committee of Experts regarding threshold levels and the requirements to sign collective agreements, the Government representative indicated that the new Act had amended the branch of activity threshold from 10 to 3 per cent. Nevertheless, to give trade unions time to adapt to the new conditions, the threshold was set at 1 per cent until July 2016. On the other hand, thresholds for enterprises concluding collective agreements at the enterprise level were reduced from 50 to 40 per cent of the number of workers at the workplace. Concerning the protection of trade union members, he indicated that the Act regulated the protection of trade union officials, shop stewards and individual freedom of association with reference to the relevant ILO Conventions. Furthermore, union officials and shop stewards were given an absolute right of reinstatement. Shop stewards could not be dismissed without a justified reason, which had to be clearly and precisely stated in written form in full conformity with the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135). Individual freedom of association was guaranteed in the recruitment procedure, employment and the termination of employment. In any lawsuit brought concerning the termination of an employment contract due to trade union affiliation, the burden of proof that the dismissal was not caused by trade union membership laid with the employer. It was frequently claimed, with regard to section 25(5) of Act No. 6356, that workers employed in workplaces employing less than 30 workers were excluded from special compensation for trade union violations. This statement was unfounded since it did not take into account the last sentence of paragraph 5 guaranteeing special compensation for all workers in the case of anti-union dismissal, which could not be inferior to a year’s salary. Even if workers did not bring a case to court on the basis of the provisions on protection against dismissal, they were entitled to claim union compensation, which should not be lower than the worker’s annual wage. The Government representative further stated that a case had been brought to the Constitutional Court concerning the annulment of the abovementioned provision and a decision was expected soon. His Government considered that the Committee should have awaited the implementation in practice of the new laws before including his country in the list of individual cases.

The Worker members said that they were following the events currently unfolding in the major cities in Turkey with deep concern. They condemned the disproportionate police brutality and expressed their support for those who were fighting for the application of democratic, social and trade union rights. They highlighted the fact that several trade union organizations in Turkey, supported by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), had denounced the particularly frequent discrimination against trade unions in the public and private sectors. It would be helpful if the Government would indicate the procedure for examining complaints of anti-union discrimination in the public sector and would forward statistics on the examination of cases of anti-union discrimination and interference in practice in both the public and private sectors. The Government claimed only to have such statistics for the public sector. Without specific statistics on complaints made and how they had been dealt with, the Committee could not carry out its work. With regard to the public sector, the Worker members recalled that, although Article 8 of the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), provided a certain degree of leeway in the choice of procedures for settling disputes, they nevertheless needed to be quick, impartial and perceived as such by the parties concerned. The procedure for the public sector in Turkey involved submitting written or oral statements to superiors, with the possibility to have recourse to administrative proceedings as a second step. They considered that that procedure, in particular the first stage thereof, did not guarantee impartiality. The Worker members highlighted problems posed by the adoption, on 18 October 2012, of the new Collective Labour Relations Act, which applied to the private sector. The Bill eventually adopted had been rejected several times by the trade unions. According to information available, the Act contained provisions that were a regression compared to those previously in force. Regarding the thresholds for forming enterprise trade unions, the legislative reform presented new obstacles and indirectly prevented the creation of new organizations in enterprises that already had a union. It was regrettable that the Committee of Experts had not been able to undertake an in-depth analysis of the new Act.

The Worker members noted that there had been significant changes regarding collective bargaining in the public sector. The 2010 constitutional reform had introduced the right of civil servants and public employees to conclude collective agreements. Several legislative amendments, including the adoption of Act No. 6289 amending Act No. 4688 of 25 June 2001 on public servants’ trade unions, had subsequently been made in 2012 to give effect to the constitutional amendment. That Act had some positive aspects, for example, concerning the length of the bargaining period, but the effects of the changes in practice remained to be clarified. The Committee of Experts had, however, emphasized that some of its comments had not been taken into account, particularly regarding the direct participation of employers in bargaining, alongside the financial authorities, and the significant role played by bargaining between the parties. Regarding those two points, the usefulness of the General Survey on collective bargaining in the public sector was noted. The Worker members considered it necessary to ensure that the new Acts adopted did not jeopardize the principles of the Convention. An in-depth analysis of the new Collective Labour Relations Act and an assessment of whether Act No. 6289 on collective bargaining in the public service was in conformity with the Convention, Convention No. 151 and the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154), and how it was being implemented should therefore be conducted.

The Employer members, recalling that Turkey had been a Member of the ILO since 1932, noted that the last time it had been called before the Committee because of the Convention had been in 2000. They drew attention to the information that the Committee of Experts had requested from the Government concerning the following: the procedure for examining complaints of anti-union discrimination in the public sector; statistical data showing progress in the efficient handling of alleged acts of anti-union discrimination; and a copy of the Collective Labour Relations Act, for the Committee to examine its contents and scope. They highlighted the legislative reform strengthening the rights of public servants and other state employees in the area of collective agreements. On the other hand, as the Committee of Experts had pointed out, there was no information on such issues as the need for legislation to guarantee direct employer participation in collective bargaining, along with the economic authorities.

The Employer members thanked the Government for the information on Act No. 6356 on trade unions and collective agreements, which was the product of social dialogue and replaced two standards on collective bargaining. Thanks to social dialogue and tripartism, the country had seen major social changes, which were reflected in the joint declaration by the social partners of 10 April 2013. Act No. 6289 on collective bargaining in the public sector and other significant changes had brought the country closer to effective compliance with the Convention. Since, as a result of those reforms, the workers and employers and their organizations now benefited from a more appropriate level of protection, it was time for the Committee to revise its assessment of the application of the Convention in Turkey. Through technical cooperation activities, the Government should soon be in a position to comply fully with its provisions.

A Worker member of Turkey indicated that his organization had been actively involved in the preparatory process of Act No. 6356, but that the final text had been the subject of various amendments without a full consensus being reached. The Committee of Experts had expressed the hope that the new Act would make the necessary amendments to the legislation, but some important amendments were still pending. The new Act abolished union compensation in the case of dismissal of workers due to trade union activities in workplaces employing 30 workers or less, which was leading to difficulties in organizing six and a half million workers. Turning to representation requirements for collective bargaining, he considered that the threshold required for collective bargaining should be kept at a level that secured the existence of independent and strong unions and should not have a negative effect on the right to organize. The new Act had decreased the 10 per cent threshold required at branch level to 3 per cent. However, the main difficulty related to the requirement for a union to represent more than half of the workers in the workplace and 40 per cent of the workers at enterprise level, which had been maintained in the new Act. In addition, while the certificate of competence for collective bargaining of unions was issued by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, an appeal against this certificate could be launched by the employer or another trade union, and necessary arrangements had to be made in consultation with the parties concerned to overcome this problem. Turning to the implementation gaps of other fundamental Conventions, in particular the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), he pointed out that the approach to search for loopholes in the legislation to keep the union away from the workplace still prevailed and was the biggest obstacle to the effective implementation of national legislation, Convention No. 87 and other Conventions. In this context, he referred to the difficulties encountered by the Food and Tobacco Workers Union in reaching a consensus with the public employer, including through a strike covering 10,000 workers, and by the Aviation Workers Union in trying to reach a consensus to reinstate 305 of the 350 members who had been dismissed due to their trade union activities.

Another Worker member of Turkey noted the legislative amendments and indicated that while improvements had been made, as underlined in the report of the Committee of Experts, there were still enormous problems for public employees or even drawbacks with regard to the application of the Convention, despite the visit of the high-level missions to the country in 2008 and 2010. He pointed to a number of difficulties: while the Act extended the period of collective bargaining to 30 days, in practice, collective bargaining was only possible over a period of 15 days, which was insufficient; the exclusive right of the heads of the respective parties to turn to the arbitration board in the event of disagreements; the dominant position of employers in the public workers arbitration board; the absence of the right of appeal with regard to a board decision; the remaining exclusion of public servants in military institutions and security guards from the right to organize under the amended Act No. 4688 (in this regard, he referred to dismissals of members of the police trade union “Emniyet-Sen”); the lack of regulations provided in the amended Act No. 4688 to prevent double standards among trade unions; and the non-recognition of any type of collective action such as strikes for public servants. Finally, the Worker member expressed the view that the current events in Turkey were a result of the lack of social dialogue between the Government and the social partners.

The Employer member of Turkey indicated that the country had just undergone a radical reform process regarding legislation on industrial relations. The recently adopted Act on trade unions and collective agreements included significant modifications on subjects like joining and resigning from trade unions; the number of branches of activities; bans on strikes and lock-outs; and eligibility for collective bargaining. Among the achievements, which had been subject to discussions and ILO criticism for about two decades, the conclusion of framework agreements had been made possible; the requirement for Turkish citizenship in order to be a founding member of a trade union had been removed; notarial attestation to join, resign from or be expelled from a trade union had been removed; the regulation of the functioning of trade unions through their statutes and regulations had been established, enabling trade unions to pursue their statutory activities freely; limitation on membership dues had been removed; thresholds regarding branches of activity had been reduced, and eligibility for bargaining at the enterprise level had also been reduced; the scope of the prohibition on strikes had been narrowed and imprisonment was no longer a penalty for certain offences. The new Act had been prepared through a wide process of social dialogue, so that almost 95 per cent of the provisions included in the new Act reflected a broad consensus among the Turkish social partners. He further referred to the signing by the Labour Minister and a large number of social partners of a Joint Declaration in 2013, in which support was expressed for opening the Social and Employment Chapter in European Union membership negotiations was expressed in view of the substantial legislative changes that had taken place in the country. The extent of legislative reforms and the commitment of the social partners meant that the case should be removed from the list of individual cases.

An observer representing the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) referring also to the Public Employees’ Trade Unions (KESK) and the Confederation of Progressive Trade Unions of Turkey (DISK) stated that the current violations of trade union and human rights in Turkey restricted all aspects of freedom of association and the right to assembly. She expressed the view that the collective bargaining process in Turkey could not be addressed without considering the repressive atmosphere in the country, including repression faced by members of KESK. Examples of such repression included the travel ban on the President of KESK, who had therefore not been able to attend the Conference, the imprisonment of 89 unionists and investigations and trials on nearly all activities organized by KESK members. Some 500,000 public servants did not have the right to join or form trade unions. She went on to point to the importance of addressing trade union rights and political rights in the context of collective bargaining and their relation to other rights such as the right to join political parties of public employees, job security for all workers in the public sector and the right to child care facilities. Whereas the right to strike should be ensured in the context of collective bargaining, such a right did not exist in the public sector. Turning to the issue of representation requirements in collective bargaining, she highlighted the difficulties, including repression, encountered in representing public employees, which had led to other pro-government trade unions being more successful during the collective bargaining process. In addition, the appointment by the Government of the members of the arbitration boards for dispute settlement also implied a violation of the right to collective bargaining as the Government could directly affect negotiations. The new Act did not withdraw the thresholds for collective bargaining and the requirement for a union to represent more than half of the workers at enterprise level still existed. As a result of the 3 per cent threshold at sectoral level, 28 out of 51 unions could lose their competence certificate. That meant that 5.1 million workers covering 6 per cent of the labour force would not be able to find a union able to sign a collective agreement.

The Government member of Pakistan indicated that Turkey had ratified all the fundamental Conventions, and that the application of Convention No. 98 had been noted with satisfaction by the Committee of Experts. It was therefore disappointing to see the case included in the list of individual cases. Turkey had taken significant steps to bring its legislation in line with Conventions Nos 87 and 98. The new laws had been adopted after intense dialogue with the social partners, which demonstrated that tripartism was functioning well in the country.

The Worker member of France, referring also to Education International, underlined the importance of effective tripartite social dialogue for social justice, the fight against inequality and respect for fundamental principles and rights at work, which, as the Committee for the Recurrent Discussion had recognized during the International Labour Conference in 2012, were human rights. Respect for freedom of expression within a democratic framework was fundamental to developing social dialogue, which was far from being a reality in Turkey. She went on to point out that the Committee on Freedom of Association, in its March 2012 conclusions on a complaint presented in 2010 concerning the violation of Convention No. 98, had recalled that “no one should be penalized for carrying out or attempting to carry out legitimate trade union activity”. However, numerous trade unionists were currently in prison in Turkey or forbidden from travelling because proceedings were under way. Those proceedings were inordinately long, as could be seen from the case of 72 members and officials of KESK arrested by police and on trial since 2012. Some 22 trade unionists had spent 289 days in prison before their trials began. Although they had been released on bail, the proceedings against them were still continuing. The President of KESK had been forbidden from leaving the country because proceedings were ongoing and had therefore been unable to attend the Conference. Procedural delays were a form of harassment and intimidation of trade unionists. She emphasized that long periods of pre-trial detention constituted a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. She considered that, under such circumstances, collective bargaining had clearly become impossible.

An observer representing the IndustriALL Global Union highlighted that Turkey had spent a very difficult year in terms of collective bargaining rights in 2012. According to national legislation, the collective bargaining process could only begin once a certificate of competence had been issued by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security. Until the enactment of the new collective bargaining legislation in November 2012, the Ministry did not issue any certificates of competence for any trade union. With this arbitrary and illegal administrative decision, the right of collective bargaining was de facto suspended contrary to the provisions of the Convention and Turkey’s Constitution. The IndustriALL Global Union had filed a complaint before the ILO with respect to that situation. According to the national legislation, trade unions that could not get a certificate of competence were disabled in collecting dues and in appointing trade union representatives, endangering the viability of trade unions and obstructing workers from enjoying their fundamental rights. In particular, workers heavily abstained from joining trade unions since the unions were not able to afford any protection to their members. He went on to state that the difficulties had not stopped with the adoption of the new Act. The new Act maintained thresholds for collective bargaining certification which still constituted barriers to the exercise of freedom of association and collective bargaining since many unions were likely to lose their certification with the creation of larger sectors. Turkey was the only country where a sectoral threshold was necessary for workplace collective bargaining and one third of union members did not have access to bargaining rights. In the meantime, workplace thresholds were still too high, creating huge difficulties for the unions. In addition, the new legislation did not provide any solution to the long-standing judicial processes resulting from the employers’ common practice of challenging the issuance of certificates of competence by the Ministry of Labour. During such legal proceedings, union members were often dismissed, as shown by many concrete cases of famous brands in the textile, chemical and metal sectors.

The Government member of Egypt stated that the Government had taken significant steps to amend national legislation so as to ensure its conformity with international Conventions. The amendments had been made within the framework of constructive social dialogue and with the participation of all of the social partners. It should likewise be noted that a new Act on collective bargaining in the public service, in line with the principles set out in Conventions Nos 87 and 98, had been adopted in April 2012 and that certain provisions of the Constitution that restricted the right to bargain collectively had been abrogated. The speaker therefore considered that the case should not be examined further by this Committee.

The Worker member of Germany stated that the acts of discrimination in the private and public sectors aimed at trade unionists were a matter of concern and discrimination against people who wanted to organize constituted a clear violation of the Convention. The situation affected not only Turkish companies but also international corporations operating in Turkey. The speaker provided examples of employees who had been intimidated because they had wanted to join unions, including on 20 November 2007 when 17 organized employees were arrested in Ankara for allegedly creating a terrorist organization which, according to the union, were baseless claims. The employees were released after 200 days in prison and the Government had provided no information in that regard. In December 2012, 11 employees were sentenced by the criminal court in Ankara to imprisonment for a period of one to six years. Those cases demonstrated the extent of trade union discrimination and were a matter of great concern which should continue to be monitored closely.

An observer representing Public Services International (PSI) recalled that in the last year, there had been unprecedented attacks on trade union rights in Turkey, including the arrest in February 2013 of 151 trade union representatives, mostly members of KESK, and the detention of 15 female trade unionists in February 2012 and of another 67 trade unionists in June 2012. Some of those arrested had since been released but others were still imprisoned without formal charges having been filed against them. She indicated that armed police raids on union offices, using excessive violence, had been reported in recent months while a few days ago, municipal workers in Ankara were threatened with dismissal if they participated in protest actions. The speaker observed that the sole intention of the new draft labour law reform was to make it increasingly difficult for unions to register and bargain collectively and that it was essentially another element of the Government’s anti-union strategy. She called upon the Government to put an end to the intimidation and harassment of trade union members and leaders, to promptly release those detained and to undertake the revision of the labour law reform.

The Worker member of the Netherlands focused her comments on three issues. First, referring to the May Day celebration, she regretted that excessive police violence used in this year’s gathering in Taksim Square had cast a shadow over the Government’s initiative to declare 1 May as a public holiday, which had been generally accepted as progress. Secondly, concerning the protection against discrimination for trade union membership and activities, the speaker stressed that collective bargaining was one of the main instruments for income redistribution and, because it was so excessively restricted in law and practice, Turkey was among the top three countries identified by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for income inequality. It was of the utmost importance that the new law on trade unions and collective bargaining agreements effectively removed legal barriers to collective bargaining. That was the only way that the Government could align its legislation with the Convention, and it was unfortunate that the Committee of Experts had not been able to comment on the new law which would have allowed for a discussion in the Committee. Thirdly, with regard to the so-called “double threshold”, which imposed on trade unions a high requirement of representation before they could qualify for participation in collective bargaining, the speaker indicated that, from the information available, as well as the statement of the Government representative, it was understood that the double threshold still existed. It had been criticized by the Committee of Experts and by this Committee on several occasions. The percentage of required representation would be increasing from the current 1 per cent. The Committee had been asking the Government to bring its legislation into line with the Convention, which could include not increasing the representation threshold for the sector above 1 per cent. She recalled that workers in companies with less than 30 workers enjoyed less protection against anti-union discrimination. However, section 25(5) of the new Act was ambiguous and could be understood as implying that workers in small companies with less than 30 workers could no longer go to court to obtain compensation in case of unfair dismissal for trade union activities. The Government should be asked, at a minimum, to remove this blatant form of trade union discrimination as soon as possible. Economic growth should be based on a level playing field of fundamental labour standards, including Convention No. 98, which should apply to all workers.

The Government representative provided additional explanations on the various points raised during the discussion. Referring to the alleged dismissal of workers on the ground of union affiliation, he drew attention to the Penal Code and the trade union legislation providing for heavy sanctions in case of anti-union discrimination and indicated that persons who had grounds to believe that they were discriminated against due to their union activities could file a lawsuit at any time. Regarding the complaints of anti-union discrimination in the public sector, the speaker stated that measures were set out in Act No. 4688 and relevant circulars for the purpose of protecting the right to organize, avoiding any restrictions on freedom of association and ensuring sufficient protection against all types of discrimination. Section 18(2) of the Act provided that any public institution could not transfer the shop steward, trade union provincial or district representative and branch administrator to another position without stating the specific reasons for such transfer. With respect to the allegations that trade unionists were prosecuted on the grounds of terrorism as a means of systematically stigmatizing and delegitimizing trade union activities, his Government rejected these claims as completely unfounded. Turkey was a democratic country based on the rule of law and had an independent judiciary. If any trade union members had been arrested or put on trial, this was not associated with their trade union activities but rather with their involvement in violent terrorist activities or the setting up of terrorist organizations. Information received from the Ministry of Justice and the Interior showed that certain trade unionists had been arrested for breaching the Penal Code Act No. 5237, the Fighting Terrorism Act No. 3713 and the Demonstrations and Marches Act No. 2911. As for the “double threshold” system as a barrier to collective bargaining, the speaker explained that the sector-level threshold would be lowered to 3 per cent as of July 2018 but added that the Government was prepared to consider the request of the Worker members not to increase that threshold above 1 per cent. Concerning the declining number of trade unions authorized to sign collective agreements, the speaker observed that the certification of competence for a trade union to conclude a collective agreement was previously determined by reference to inaccurate and inflated statistical data provided by the trade unions themselves. The Government had introduced a new system based on cross-checking the figures of the Social Security Institute since 2009, providing more accurate figures regarding trade union membership and unionization rates. According to recent statistics, in 2013, the rate of unionization in Turkey was 9.21 per cent, which was of course lower than previously established figures. It would now be for the trade unions to intensify their efforts so as to increase the number of their members.

With reference to the incidents surrounding the May Day celebrations at Taksim Square, his Government could not accept any accusations and he indicated that the Government had opened the way for May Day celebrations in Taksim Square after a long period of prohibition. With one exception, May Day was peacefully celebrated throughout the country with 136 events in 76 provinces and the participation of 250,000 people. That year, Taksim Square was closed to mass gatherings for safety reasons due to ongoing construction works. Some marginal groups provoked violent incidents damaging public and private property but police action was at no point directed against any trade union premises or any group exercising its right to freedom of association or freedom of speech.

The Worker members emphasized the fact that the Government should be asked to submit the statistical data that the Committee of Experts had requested so that it could verify whether the procedure used for complaints of anti-union discrimination in the public sector afforded sufficient protection. As for the private sector, since the Government had said that there were no statistics available on cases of anti-union discrimination, it should be asked to implement a reliable system for identifying such cases. In addition, the Government should also provide detailed information on how the new law governing labour relations had taken account of the comments of the Committee of Experts over many years, as some of the requirements of the law appeared to run contrary to the provisions of the Convention. The Worker members concluded by emphasizing that since the collaboration between the Office and the Government had not yet produced the desired results, technical cooperation should be strengthened in order to resolve the urgent issues: removing the provisions from the law on labour relations that could result in discrimination between workers in small and large enterprises; not increasing the threshold that had been set for the establishment of trade unions, given that the Government had expressed its goodwill in that regard; and removing the obstacles to freedom of expression and trade union industrial action.

The Employer members appreciated the progress that had been made in terms of labour legislation, particularly as it was the result of tripartite social dialogue. However, additional information was required, including specific statistical data, in order to determine the extent of the problem in the public sector. In addition, the legislation should be amended in consultation with the social partners to be in full conformity with the Convention. To that end, the Government should accept technical assistance from the Office, undertake to gather the information that had been requested and send a detailed account in time for the forthcoming session of the Committee of Experts.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the oral information provided by the Government and the discussion that ensued.

The Committee noted that the outstanding issues concerned numerous allegations of acts of anti-union discrimination in both the public and private sectors and the national mechanisms available to enable complaints about such acts, as well as the need to ensure a legislative framework for free and voluntary collective bargaining.

The Committee noted the information provided by the Government concerning the adoption of the law on trade unions and collective agreements No. 6356 and the law concerning collective bargaining in the public service No. 6289, adopted in the spirit of tripartism and intensive social dialogue, as well as with ILO standards as a main reference point. It further observed the Government’s enumeration of a number of provisions that were brought into closer conformity with the Convention. The Government also stated that the comments of the workers’ representatives concerning the double threshold system would also be taken into consideration.

The Committee welcomed the elements of progress that had been observed in this case through the adoption of the law concerning collective bargaining in the public service but further noted the need to intensify efforts related to certain categories of public service workers who were not covered by this law as well as other limitations to collective bargaining in the public sector. The Committee expressed the firm hope that the legislation, and its practical implementation, would ensure fuller conformity with the Convention and invited the Government to avail itself of the technical cooperation of the ILO in this regard. In particular, the Committee requested the Government to establish a system for collecting data on anti-union discrimination in the private sector and to ensure the removal of any ambiguities in the new legislation in light of its assessment by the Committee of Experts. The Committee requested the Government to provide all relevant information, including as regards the functioning of national complaints mechanisms and all statistical data related to anti-union discrimination in the private and public sectors. Finally, the Committee requested the Government to supply a detailed report to the Committee of Experts for examination at its next meeting this year.