Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2024, published 113rd ILC session (2025)

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

The Committee notes the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), received on 30 August 2024, relating to the discussions held in the Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference (the Conference Committee) on the application of the Convention by Türkiye. The Committee also notes the observations of the Confederation of Public Employees Trade Unions (KESK) and the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received respectively on 31 August and 17 September 2024, which relate to issues examined in the present comment. The Committee notes the responses of the Government to these observations.

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 112 th Session, June 2024)

The Committee notes the discussion held in the Conference Committee in June 2024 on the application of the Convention by Türkiye, during which it noted with concern the high number of cases of anti-union discrimination in the country and the lack of sufficiently dissuasive sanctions to combat this phenomenon in law and in practice. The Committee also noted with concern the significant gaps in law and practice regarding the scope of collective bargaining. Taking into account the discussion, the Conference Committee called on the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to take appropriate and effective measures to:

• ensure the independent, expeditious and in-depth investigation into the alleged anti-union dismissals under the state of emergency decrees in the framework of procedures presenting all the guarantees of due process;
• adopt effective and dissuasive sanctions against anti-union discrimination, including anti-union dismissals, in both the public and private sectors, and ensure that workers who have suffered such prejudice are entitled to appropriate remedies (including reinstatement, financial compensation, etc.);
• engage in a comprehensive review of judicial and non-judicial mechanisms for the effective and timely investigation and redress of cases of anti-union discrimination;
• establish a robust system for collecting data on anti-union discrimination in both the public and private sectors;
• prevent interference in legitimate trade union activities and use of violence against trade union members and workers;
• amend section 34 of Act No. 6356 with a view to enabling parties in the private sector wishing to engage in cross-sector regional or national agreements to do so;
• ensure that minority trade unions are able to exercise their rights protected under the Convention;
• ensure that court proceedings on the legal validity of trade union majority certificates are concluded within a reasonable time;
• amend section 28 of Act No. 4688 with a view to removing restrictions on the material scope of collective bargaining in the public sector and to ensure that the parties concerned can autonomously decide the subjects for negotiation;
• amend existing legislation to ensure that prison staff, locum workers and public servants without a written contract can effectively exercise their right to organize and bargain collectively under the Convention;
• provide efficient and rapid remedies against the dismissal of trade union members based on state of emergency powers;
• review the method of appointment of members of the public employee arbitration board so as to ensure its independence and impartiality;
• elaborate and implement awareness-raising campaigns and programmes to educate the police and security forces, the judiciary and the administration on trade union rights;
• provide any outstanding information requested by the Committee of Experts before its next session together with detailed information on the measures taken to implement these recommendations, and on the results achieved.

The Conference Committee invited the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance to effectively implement all of the Committee’s recommendations.

Articles 1–6 of the Convention. Personal scope of the Convention. Prison staff. In its previous comments, the Committee repeatedly requested the Government to take the necessary measures to guarantee that prison staff can be effectively represented by the organizations of their own choosing in collective bargaining. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that (i) a 2023 Constitutional Court decision permits heads of departments, faculty deans, institute and college directors and their deputies to establish and join trade unions, suggesting that their roles in public power do not automatically disqualify them from trade union membership, and (ii) the justification of this decision may serve as stimulating jurisprudence for narrowing the category of public servants who cannot become members of a trade union. Noting the Government’s indications, the Committee recalls that under the terms of the Convention, prison staff have the right of collective bargaining, which includes the right to be represented in negotiations by the organization of their own choosing. The Committee therefore once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures, including through revising section 15 of Act No. 4688, to guarantee that prison staff can be effectively represented by the organizations of their own choosing in collective bargaining.

Locum workers and public servants working without a written contract. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to ensure that locum workers, who include teachers, nurses and midwives, as well as public servants without a written contract, can exercise the rights enshrined in the Convention. The Committee notes that, while reiterating that these workers cannot join the unions established under Act No. 4688, because they are not employed in any cadre or position as required by section 3 of the law, the Government indicates that the Tripartite Consultation Board met in October 2023 under the theme of social dialogue at the Ministry of Labour and Social Security. During the meeting chaired by the Minister himself, representatives from the Ministry, its affiliated institutions, the Confederation of Turkish Trade Unions (TÜRK-İŞ), the Confederation of Real Trade Unions (HAK-İŞ), the Confederation of Progressive Trade Unions of Türkiye (DİSK), and the Turkish Confederation of Employer Associations (TİSK) discussed the country’s challenges in this area. It was decided to form sub-working committees, which will immediately begin work alongside confederations, trade unions, legal experts, and academics. The sub-working committee convened its first meeting on 23 May 2024, focusing on challenges within the current collective labour legislation, and considering possible amendments in this regard. It agreed to hold a second meeting on 26 June 2024. Noting the Government’s indications, the Committee expects that the Government will soon be able to report progress to ensure that locum workers and public servants working without a written contract can exercise their right to organize and collective bargaining, either by amending the law to allow them to join organizations formed under Act No. 4688, or by providing a framework within which they can create their own organizations.

Articles 1, 2 and 3. Massive dismissals in the public sector under the state of emergency decrees. In its previous comments, the Committee noted with deep concern that the public officials alleging that their dismissals in application of the State of Emergency Decree-Laws following the 2016 coup attempt were indeed motivated by anti-union reasons, had not had access to an effective, rapid, and fair procedure that would protect them against anti-union dismissals. The Committee had therefore urged the Government to take appropriate measures to ensure the independent, expeditious and in-depth investigation of such allegations in the framework of effective and rapid procedures presenting all the guarantees of due process. The Committee notes that according to the KESK’s latest observations on this issue, the same situation persists and almost 60 per cent of KESK members who were dismissed continue to demand justice. The KESK alleges that even among those who have obtained the right to return to their jobs, a number of them are not being reinstated because of security investigations, which the Government does not dispute in its reply. The Committee notes the Government’s reiteration that the Commission of Inquiry carried out its examinations and assessments of the applications in accordance with the procedures and principles laid down by Law No. 7075 and that it is therefore incorrect to say that KESK’s members were deliberately targeted. The Government reiterates that the primary focus of the Commission of Inquiry in assessing applications was to determine whether individuals had acted in accordance with the orders and instructions of a terrorist organization. The Government adds that in each case, the grounds for dismissal and the data collected were carefully reviewed. Additionally, decisions made by judicial authorities were monitored through the National Judiciary Informatics System (UYAP). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the Commission of Inquiry’s decisions, detailed in its Activity Report, were notified to the relevant institutions, with successful applicants reinstated by the respective institution or the Council of Higher Education; (ii) dissatisfied individuals could appeal to nine specialized Administrative Courts in Ankara; (iii) dismissals were conducted in accordance with constitutional and legal provisions, aiming at eliminating threats to national security. For the Government, security-related issues are separate from labour matters, and as no trade unionist is immune from the consequences of unlawful acts, trade unionists were detained on the suspicion of being members of terrorist organizations or having participated in terrorist activities in violation of the Turkish Penal Code, Anti-Terror Law and the Law on Meetings and Demonstrations. The Committee notes once again that it cannot be inferred from the information provided by the Government that in the work of the Commission of Inquiry, consideration was given, and safeguards established to adequately examine allegations of anti-union discrimination. The Committee also notes that the Government reiterates the information provided to the Conference Committee in June 2024 according to which the President of the Republic introduced a judicial reform strategy in 2019 and that, as part of the strategy, the Eighth Judicial Package, published in March 2024, expanded the mandates and authorities of the Human Rights Compensation Commission, established in 2013, to shorten litigation processes. In view of the foregoing, the Committee once again expresses its deep concern that the public officials who allege that their dismissals in application of the State of Emergency Decree-Laws were indeed motivated by anti-union reasons did not have access to an effective, rapid and fair procedure that would protect them against anti-union dismissals. Therefore, the Committee once again urges the Government to take appropriate measures without further delay to ensure the independent, expeditious and in-depth investigation of such allegations in the framework of effective and rapid procedures presenting all the guarantees of due process. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any steps taken in this respect, as well as on the impact of the Human Rights Compensation Commission in the context of the Eighth Judicial Package.

Continued use of state of emergency powers to dismiss union members. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide its comments on the KESK’s observation that despite the expiration of the state of emergency, governors and ministries continued to use the provisional section 35 of the Emergency Decree Law No. 375, dismissing 21 teacher members of the Education and Science Workers’ Union of Turkey (EĞİTİM SEN) from Diyarbakir on 29 November 2021. Regretting the absence of any new information on this subject, the Committee requests the Government to provide its comments with respect to the allegation of the continued use of state of emergency powers to dismiss union members.

Article 1. Adequate protection against anti-union dismissals. Private sector. In its previous comments the Committee noted that pursuant to the current legislation: (i) judicial authorities could in no circumstances impose an order of reinstatement on a private sector employer; (ii) section 25(4) of Act No. 6356 (Law on Trade Unions and Collective Labour Agreements) fixed a minimum amount for “union compensation” in case of acts of anti-union discrimination other than dismissal, which is the worker’s annual wage, but in cases of anti-union dismissal, neither a minimum amount nor a cap was fixed in the law; the issue seemed to be left to the discretion of the judicial authority; and (iii) the Government did not refer to any other existent penalty or sanction for anti-union dismissals, and section 78 of Act No. 6356 containing penal provisions was silent about anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes that for the Government the legislation provides sufficient protection and deterrent sanctions against discriminatory acts. The Government reiterates in particular that (i) the provisions of the Labour Law No. 4857 on unjustified dismissals are designed along the lines of the Termination of Employment Convention, 1982 (No. 158), which does not require mandatory reinstatement but provides for adequate compensation; (ii) both sanctions for damages, administrative fines and actions for reinstatement are provided for violations of sections 17, 19 and 25 of Act No. 6356; (iii) actions for reinstatement and damages in cases of anti-union discrimination in employment are regulated in section 25 of Act No. 6356, and (iv) section 118 of the Penal Code No. 5237 provides that whoever uses force or threat against a person to force them to join or not to join a union, to participate in the activities of the union or to leave their position in the union or union management, will be sentenced to imprisonment from six months to two years. Concerning the amount of compensation paid to a worker dismissed for anti-union reasons, the Committee recalls, however, that there is no specific provision under Act No. 6356 setting out the amount of “union compensation”, the determination of which is left to the discretion of the judge. The Committee further recalls the recommendations formulated in this regard by the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 3410. In view of the above, the Committee once again urges the Government, in full consultation with the social partners, to take appropriate measures to adopt effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against anti-union dismissals in the private sector. The Committee further requests the Government to provide information regarding the judicial practice in the determination of the amount of compensation awarded to workers dismissed for anti-union reasons. Finally, in the absence of any information brought to its attention on this subject, the Committee urges the Government to provide its comments regarding the observation of the ITUC alleging the summary dismissal of 180 workers, all members of the Turkish Wood and Paper Industry Workers’ Union (AGAC-IS), after a court ordered the company to start negotiations with the union in June 2022.

Anti-union discrimination in the public sector. In its previous comments, the Committee observed that (i) while section 18 of Act No. 4688 prohibits anti-union discrimination including transfers and dismissals, the fine provided in section 38/b of the Act does not appear to be applicable to acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of employment, as it does not cover violations of section 18 of the Act which prohibits such acts, and (ii) the same consideration applies to section 118 of the Penal Code. The Committee notes that while the Government reiterates that the above-mentioned provisions ensure sufficient protection against all types of discrimination, it does not indicate other legal provisions allowing compensation to be awarded to public sector workers subjected to anti-union discrimination. The Committee can therefore only note once again that the legislation does not provide for compensation for victims of anti-union discrimination (including dismissals), or for any sanctions against those responsible for anti-union discrimination. The Committee therefore once again urges the Government, in full consultation with the social partners, to take appropriate measures to ensure that provision is made in the legislation for an adequate protection against anti-union discrimination in the public sector, by providing for full compensation of the prejudice suffered in both occupational and financial terms and by providing for effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions.The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any steps taken in this respect and to provide its comments regarding the observations of the KESK in 2023 and 2024, alleging the anti-union transfer of about 30 members among its affiliates.

Collection of data on anti-union discrimination in private and public sectors. The Committee recalls that the Government was requested to establish a system for collecting data on anti-union discrimination in both private and public sectors. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that (i) works were launched by the “distribution bureau” within the UYAP system. However, the capacity of this bureau and the heavy workload of the judicial bodies as well as the large number of cases aggravate the system of legal registration of cases in which real anti-union discrimination has been identified; (ii) the Alo 170 hotline is also a relevant tool to receive all kinds of information on labour and social security issues; (iii) under the “Development of Social Dialogue in Working Life” project carried out jointly by the ILO and the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, the report entitled “Methods of Establishing a Data Collection System for the Detection of Trade Union Discrimination in the Private and Public Sectors and a Model Suggestion for Türkiye” was prepared with the social partners and published on 3 October 2018. However, despite the efforts outlined in the report, a concrete model proposal for Türkiye could not be developed, nor was there any existing example from other countries that could serve as a benchmark for union discrimination data reporting. The Committee further notes that the Government reiterates that the determination of whether a dismissal is due to trade union membership or activity is made by court decisions; however considering the court processes and the duration of the cases, the difficulties in tracking and recording the necessary information are considerable, and it is currently not possible to obtain reliable data on trade union discrimination. Noting with regret the lack of significant progress concerning this matter, the Committee once again stresses the need to take concrete steps towards establishing the system for collecting data on anti-union discrimination and expects the Government to provide in its next report information on any development in this respect.

Article 2. Adequate protection against acts of interference. Collective agreement bonus. The Committee noted the observations of the Health Services Union (SAHİM-SEN) concerning the collective agreement bonus which was paid only to members of public servants’ unions registering at least two per cent of the total number of public servants eligible to union membership in the relevant sector. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that following a decision of the Constitutional Court of 18 January 2024, the rule requiring membership in public servants’ unions that exceed the 2 per cent threshold to benefit from collective agreement bonuses was revoked. The Constitutional Court stated that although there is no obligation for public servants to join trade unions, the practice of granting collective agreement bonuses exclusively to members of these unions has a restrictive effect on the establishment of new unions and the freedom of choice for workers to join any union of their preference. The Committee takes due note of the Court decision.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. Cross-sector bargaining. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that while cross-sector bargaining resulting in “public collective labour agreement framework protocols” was possible in the public sector, this was not the case in the private sector. The Committee requested the Government to initiate a new consultation process with the social partners with a view to amending section 34 of Act No. 6356 to ensure that it did not restrict the possibility of the parties in the private sector to engage in cross-sector regional or national agreements should they so desire. The Committee notes that, while the Government once again indicates that the existing system is a product of a long and well-established industrial relations system in Türkiye and that it does not prevent parties wishing to enter into sectoral agreements at the regional and national levels, the Government is ready to consider proposals for amendments to the current collective bargaining system, to be made jointly by the social partners if they reach the necessary consensus on the changes. In this respect the Government is highlighting the legislative process that began in early 2024 with the participation of the social partners within the Tripartite Consultation Board. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments regarding the amendment of section 34 of Act No. 6356.

Requirements for becoming a bargaining agent. Private sector. Determination of the most representative union and rights of minority unions. The Committee recalls that section 41(1) of Act No. 6356 sets out the following requirement for becoming a collective bargaining agent at the enterprise level: the union should represent at least 1 per cent of the workers engaged in a given branch of activities and more than 50 per cent of workers employed in the workplace and 40 per cent of workers of the enterprise to engage in collective bargaining. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the lowering in 2015 of the branch representation threshold for becoming a bargaining agent at the enterprise level from 3 to 1 per cent, had had a positive impact on the unionization rate and considered that the removal of the branch threshold would have a similarly positive impact on the rate of unionization as well as on the capacity of unions, especially independent unions who are not affiliated to large confederations, to use the collective bargaining machinery. The Committee notes the observations of the ITUC which point out that the 1 per cent threshold prevents significant trade union organizations in a variety of important sectors from engaging in collective bargaining, while questioning the method of collecting and calculating union membership over time. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates its previous statements according to which the 1 per cent threshold enables strong unions to become parties to collective bargaining agreements and thus enables employees to benefit from union rights more effectively. As far as the statistics are concerned, the Committee notes the Government’s reply to the ITUC that (i) trade union membership statistics are published under the framework of Act No. 6356, which governs the rules unions must adhere to in protecting and advancing their members’ rights and regulating their activities; (ii) the Ministry of Labour and Social Security bases these statistics on membership notifications made through the e-government portal and on workers’ notifications submitted to the Social Security Institution; and (iii) since the data are transferred entirely from digital platforms, the Ministry has no ability to interfere with them. The Government points out that according to the Communiqué of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security on the statistics dated July 2024, there are 231 trade unions in Türkiye, 102 of which are affiliated to 7 workers’ trade union confederations and 129 are independent. Sixty-two unions pass the 1 per cent threshold required for collective bargaining, 57 of which are unions affiliated to three major confederations, namely TÜRK-İŞ, HAK-İŞ and DİSK. The Committee, however, continues to observe that: (i) close to 3 quarters of the unions in the country would not qualify for becoming a bargaining agent, due to the application of the 1 per cent sectoral threshold; (ii) the combination of rules governing the recognition of organizations for the purposes of collective bargaining was not conducive to the development of collective bargaining in the country, and (iii) according to ILOSTAT, 7.4 per cent of employees in Türkiye were covered by a collective agreement in 2019. Noting that the Government reaffirms its readiness to consider proposals to amend section 41(1) of Act No. 6356 if the social partners reach consensus in this respect, the Committee once again urges the Government, in full consultation with the social partners, to take the appropriate measures to: (i) amend section 41(1) of Act No. 6356 so as to ensure that more workers’ organizations can engage in collective bargaining with the employers; and (ii) amend the legislation to ensure that in cases where no union meets the conditions for becoming an exclusive bargaining agent, minority trade unions are at least able to conclude, jointly or separately, a collective or direct agreement on behalf of their own members. The Committee further requests the Government to provide information on any steps taken in this respect. The Committee also requests the Government to continue providing information concerning the number of unions in the country indicating those that pass the 1 per cent sectoral threshold, the number of collective agreements concluded and in force and the number of workers covered.

Articles 4 and 6. Collective bargaining rights of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. Material scope of collective bargaining. The Committee noted in its previous comments that section 28 of Act No. 4688, as amended in 2012, restricted the scope of collective agreements to “social and financial rights” only, thereby excluding issues such as working time, promotion and career, as well as disciplinary sanctions. In this regard, the Committee takes note of the KESK’s 2024 observations stressing that the collective bargaining framework for public employees restricted the negotiations to the economic rights and did not allow to discuss other aspects of the professional life. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates that (i) certain public servants, especially those in strategic sectors or on a contract, face restrictions regarding their union activities, and while these limitations are consistent with both national interests and international Conventions, ongoing monitoring is essential to ensure that all public servants receive adequate representation; (ii) the 2012 amendment significantly broadened the material scope of collective bargaining in the public sector and enabled public servants’ unions and confederations to participate and intervene in decisions and decision-making processes that were previously taken unilaterally by the public authorities; (iii) many improvements in the financial and social rights of public servants were introduced as a result of this process; and (iv) progress was also made concerning other matters such as leave rights, introduction of disciplinary amnesty, abolition of the practice of terminating the employment of those who received reprimands during the probationary period, presence of union representatives in disciplinary committees and important arrangements regarding civil servants with disabilities. In view of the above, the Committee requests the Government to provide further information as to the exact material scope of collective bargaining concerning public servants not engaged in the administration of the State, both in law and in practice.

Collective bargaining in the public sector. Participation of most representative branch unions. The Committee recalls that pursuant to section 29 of Act No. 4688, the Public Employers’ Delegation (PED) and the Public Servants’ Unions Delegation (PSUD) are parties to the collective agreements concluded in the public service. Even though the most representative unions in the branch are represented in the PSUD and take part in bargaining within branch-specific technical committees, their role within the PSUD is restricted in that they are not entitled to make proposals for collective agreements, in particular where their demands are qualified as general or related to more than one service branch. The Committee therefore requested the Government to ensure that Act No. 4688 and its application in practice enable the most representative unions in each branch to make proposals for collective agreements including on issues that may concern more than one service branch, as regards public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee notes that the Government merely reiterates its previous indication concerning the role of the representative branch unions within the technical committee established for each branch. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide specific information on the role effectively played by the most representative branch unions in the PSUD in respect of the conclusion of collective agreements that are applicable to more than one branch of activity.

Public employee arbitration board. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to consider reviewing the method of appointment of the Board members so as to more clearly show its independence and impartiality and to win the confidence of the parties. The Committee notes that the Government once again merely indicates that the chairperson of the Board is appointed from among the Presidents, Vice-Presidents or Heads of Departments of the Court of Cassation, the Council of State (Supreme Court for Administrative Courts) and the Supreme Court of Public Accounts. The Committee notes that, for its part, the KESK recalls that the seventh cycle of collective bargaining that took place in August 2023 ended with a referral to the Board, where it was decided that the Government’s offer was fair, and no change was made to it in favour of the public employees. Recalling that the President of the Republic designates not only the chair, but 7 out of 11 members of the public employee arbitration board, and that as the Government is also the employer in the public sector, it is therefore a party to the negotiations on which the Board will pronounce itself, the Committee notes with regret the lack of progress on this matter and once again urges the Government to consider reviewing, in consultation with the social partners, the method of appointment of the Board members and to provide information on the steps taken in this respect.

Recalling that the Government can avail itself of ILO technical assistance, the Committee firmly hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.