Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 2025, Publicación: 114ª reunión CIT (2026)

Convenio sobre el derecho de sindicación y de negociación colectiva, 1949 (núm. 98) - Türkiye (Ratificación : 1952)

The Committee notes the observations of the Confederation of Public Employees Trade Unions (KESK), received on 31 August 2025, and the responses of the Government thereto, which relate to issues examined in the present comment. The Committee notes the observations of the Confederation of Progressive Trade Unions of Turkey (DISK), received on 30 August 2025, which also refer to the issues examined in the present comment, as well as those of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 2 September 2025, concerning allegations of anti-union discrimination. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in response to the communications from the ITUC.

Articles 1 to 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 that the Government indicates that: (i) section 15 of Act No. 4688 restricts certain public officials – such as prison staff, law enforcement, and intelligence personnel – from forming or joining trade unions due to the sensitive nature of their duties, ensuring neutrality and uninterrupted public services; (ii) the Constitutional Court ruling in 2023, which had annulled certain restrictions under section 15, therefore serving as stimulating case law to restrict the category of civil servants who cannot join a union, demonstrating that the overall framework seeks to balance service neutrality with broad union rights, subject to ongoing judicial review, and (iii) all public servants, including prison staff, are covered by collective agreements concluded in the public service and benefit from collective agreements’ financial and social provisions established therein. While 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 expects that the Government will 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 the Government reiterates that these workers cannot join unions under Act No. 4688, and that following an October 2023 Tripartite Consultation Board meeting, sub-working committees were formed to address collective labour law challenges, with meetings held in May and June 2024 considering possible amendments in this regard. Noting the Government’s indications, the Committee firmly 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 to 3. Massive dismissals in the public sector under the state of emergency decrees. In its previous comments, the Committee expressed deep concern over the lack of effective, rapid and fair procedures for public officials alleging anti-union dismissals under State of Emergency Decree-Laws and urged the Government to ensure independent investigations without delay. The Committee notes that the Government highlights that Act No. 7075 created the Inquiry Commission to review State of Emergency measures, issuing over 127,000 decisions before its mandate ended in 2023, while subsequent judicial reforms – including expanded powers for the Human Rights Compensation Commission under the Eighth Judicial Package, the Ninth Judicial Package’s efficiency measures, and the 2025–29 Judicial Reform Strategy – aim to accelerate proceedings, strengthen fair trial guarantees, and improve access to justice. The Committee notes that, according to KESK, as of May 2025, there were still 2,232 dismissed KESK members (52 per cent of those dismissed) who continued, to seek justice at various levels. In view of the above, the Committee firmly urges the Government to take appropriate measures to ensure the independent, expeditious and in-depth investigation of the allegations of massive dismissals within the framework of effective and rapid procedures presenting all the guarantees of due process. The Committee reiterates its firm expectation that the competent administrative and judicial authorities will carefully and expeditiously examine the grounds for the dismissal of trade union members and officials in the public sector and order reinstatement of the trade unionists dismissed for anti-union grounds. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on any steps taken in this respect, as well as on the impact of the Human Rights Compensation Commission. Recalling that KESK had alleged the continued application of emergency powers after their expiration to dismiss 21 teacher members of the Education and Science Workers’ Union of Turkey (EĞİTİM SEN), the Committee expresses regret over the lack of new information and reiterates its request for the Government’s response on this allegation.

Article 1. Adequate protection against anti-union dismissals. Private sector. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that pursuant to the current legislation: (i) courts cannot order reinstatement in the private sector; (ii) for anti-union discrimination (except dismissal), minimum compensation equals one year’s wages; for dismissals, compensation is left to judicial discretion with no statutory limits, and (iii) section 78 of Act No. 6356 containing penal provisions is silent about anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, constitutional, statutory, administrative, and judicial measures ensure effective protection and deterrence in line with international standards: (i) constitutional guarantees (article 51 of the Constitution) protect union rights, while Labour Act No. 4857 prohibits dismissals without valid reason and excludes union activity as a ground for termination. Workers can seek reinstatement or compensation (4–8 months’ wages plus up to 4 months for proceedings); (ii) Act No. 6356 on trade unions reinforces protection by prohibiting discrimination, in recruitment, employment conditions and termination of trade-union activities, and requiring union compensation of at least one year’s wages, with no cap, plus administrative fines which are adjusted annually; (iii) Criminal liability applies for coercion under Penal Code No. 5237, which criminalizes the use of force, threats, or other unlawful means to compel or prevent union membership or activity, punishable by imprisonment from six months to three years; and (iv) Judicial reforms, including the Human Rights Compensation Commission, improve access to remedies. While taking note of this information, the Committee 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 once again 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 noted that although section 18 of Act No. 4688 prohibits anti-union discrimination, including transfers and dismissals, the fine under section 38(b) does not apply to violations of section 18. Similarly, section 118 of the Penal Code did not cover these acts. The Committee had therefore urged the Government, in consultation with social partners, to amend the legislation to provide adequate protection against anti-union discrimination in the public sector. The Committee had also requested the Government to provide its comments regarding the KESK observations in 2023 and 2024, alleging the anti-union transfer of about 30 members among its affiliates. The Committee further notes that KESK alleges that three bureau officers were relocated to different districts on 4 August 2025 without any justification. The Committee notes that the Government, for its part, indicates that: (i) section 18 of Act No. 4688 prohibits anti-union discrimination against public servants, including dismissals and transfers, and guarantees equal treatment; (ii) victims can seek annulment or compensation through administrative courts and file constitutional complaints; and (iii) additional safeguards include criminal penalties for coercion under the Penal Code and protective circulars. The Committee notes that while the Government reiterates that the above-mentioned provisions ensure sufficient protection against all types of discrimination, it still does not indicate other legal provisions allowing compensation to be awarded to public sector workers subjected to anti-union discrimination and does not give further information on the practical application of the Convention. Concerning the recent KESK allegations of involuntary relocation, the Committee notes the Government statement that (i) relocation of public servants follows public administration laws and operational needs, not disciplinary motives, and respects trade union rights, and (ii) such decisions are subject to judicial review and public servants can challenge them in administrative courts. 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, including dismissal, 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 expects that the Government will provide information on any steps taken in this respect and will provide its comments regarding the observations of KESK in 2023, 2024 and 2025 alleging anti-union transfers among its affiliates and bureau members.

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 that the Government reiterates that: (i) at present, there is no single, coordinated system exclusively dedicated to the collection of such data; (ii) in the private sector, labour inspectors record violations of articles 17 and 19 of Labour Act No. 4857 as anti-union discrimination, investigated by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security (MoLSS), with complaints accepted through the same channels; integration of union membership and Social Security data helps flag potential union-related dismissals, although it remains for the courts ultimately to decide if dismissals are union-based; (iii) in the public sector, under Act No. 4688, membership applications and resignations are processed electronically under the supervision of the MoLSS, which assists public servants in substantiating claims of discrimination before the administrative courts; (iv) the ILO and the MoLSS published a 2018 report on detecting trade union discrimination, but no workable model or international benchmark was identified; and (v) courts remain the primary authority for determining anti-union discrimination in dismissals or workplace changes, but lengthy proceedings hinder comprehensive data collection, making progress dependent on better institutional databases and integrated sources. Noting with regret the Government’s information that it is still not possible to obtain reliable data on trade union discrimination, the Committee cannot but emphasize once again the need to take concrete steps to establish a system for collecting data on anti-union discrimination and firmly expects the Government to provide information on any development in this regard.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. Cross-sector bargaining. In its previous comments, the Committee had 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 does 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 the Government once again reiterates 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 to do so. While taking note of these explanations, the Committee observes that the Government no longer refers to its readiness to consider possible legislative amendments. The Committee once again recalls that in accordance with Article 4 of the Convention, collective bargaining should remain possible at all levels and that the legislation should not impose restrictions in this regard. The Committee further recalls that while the search for a consensus regarding collective bargaining is important, it cannot constitute an obstacle to the Government’s obligation to bring the law and practice into conformity with the Convention. The Committee therefore expects the Government to engage, in consultations with the social partners with a view to amending section 34 of Act No. 6356, to ensure that the parties in the private sector wishing to engage in cross-sector regional or national agreements can do so without impairment. It requests the Government to provide information on the steps taken in this regard.

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 cumulative requirements 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 requested the Government to take the necessary steps to amend section 41(1) to allow a broader range of workers’ organizations to participate in collective bargaining and to ensure that, where no union qualifies as an exclusive bargaining agent, minority unions can conclude agreements for their members. The Committee notes that according to DISK, the Government has made no effort to initiate consultations to change the 1 per cent national threshold for union representation, which prevents thousands of union members from exercising their right to collective bargaining. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates that: (i) Türkiye uses a dual threshold system for unions to become bargaining agents under Act No. 6356, designed to maintain stability and prevent union fragmentation; (ii) Act No. 6552 (2014) lowered the industry-level threshold from 3 per cent to 1 per cent; and (iii) the Constitutional Court (2015) upheld the 1 per cent rule as constitutional for representativeness. The Committee further notes that the Government reaffirmed before the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) its readiness to consider proposals to amend section 41(1) of Act No. 6356 if the social partners reach consensus in this respect (Case No. 3490, 412th Report, para. 702). The Committee finally notes that according to the Communiqué of the MoLSS on the statistics dated July 2025, there are now 235 trade unions in Türkiye (against 231 in 2024), 104 of which are affiliated to 7 workers’ trade union confederations and 131 are independent. Sixty-five unions pass the 1 per cent threshold required for collective bargaining, 62 of which are unions affiliated to three major confederations, namely TÜRK-İŞ, HAK-İŞ and DİSK. The Committee finally notes the declaration of the Government that it remains attentive to its observations on minority unions and that the matter continues to be debated among the social partners. In view of the above, the Committee urges the Government to take appropriate measures to amend section 41(1) of Act No. 6356, in full consultation with the social partners, so as to ensure that more workers’ organizations can engage in collective bargaining. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate any initiative aimed at ensuring that, where no union qualifies as an exclusive bargaining agent, minority unions can conclude, jointly or separately, agreements for their members. The Committee further 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, and to provide information on the number of collective agreements concluded and in force.

Judicial challenges to collective bargaining agent certification. The Committee recalls that it had previously stressed the potential adverse impact of lengthy judicial proceedings dealing with collective bargaining certifications. The Committee notes that the Government reaffirmed before the CFA its commitment to addressing this issue, including through improvements to the legal regulations and social dialogue mechanisms (Case No. 3478, 412th report, para. 661). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken in this regard, to ensure that recourse to judicial challenges to collective bargaining certifications does not have the effect of unduly restricting the right to collective bargaining.

Articles 4 and 6. Collective bargaining rights of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. Material scope of collective bargaining. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested 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. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that: (i) section 28 of Act No. 4688 allows collective agreements for public servants to cover financial and social rights (e.g., salaries, allowances, bonuses); (ii) the Act complements collective bargaining by establishing advisory and institutional boards that foster regular dialogue between unions and public authorities, enabling progress on a wide range of employment issues beyond financial and social rights; and (iii) in practice, bargaining has expanded to include broader employment issues such as leave entitlements, transportation benefits, disciplinary reforms, union representation, and improved working conditions. Key gains include reduced hours for healthcare staff, judicial review of sanctions, and reclassification/reassignment of personnel. The Committee takes due note of this information.

Collective bargaining in the public sector. Participation of most representative branch unions. The Committee had previously requested the Government to provide specific information on the role effectively played by the most representative branch unions in the Public Servants’ Unions Delegation (PSUD) in respect of the conclusion of collective agreements that are applicable to more than one branch of activity. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that: (i) service branch unions have played an active role in shaping collective bargaining outcomes, which demonstrates that branch unions contribute not only to issues within their respective branches but also to the formulation of general provisions with cross-sectoral implication, for example, regulations on leave entitlements, disciplinary amnesties, improvements in additional payments and allowances, and the introduction of an additional degree for public servants were debated and adopted within the framework of collective agreements, reflecting contributions from branch unions alongside confederation representatives; and (ii) options for further strengthening the ability of the most representative service branch trade unions to submit proposals on cross-branch matters are currently being examined through consultations with social partners within the framework of national social-dialogue mechanisms. The Committee requests the Government to report on any new developments in this matter.

Public employee arbitration board. In its previous comments, the Committee repeatedly requested the Government to consider reviewing the method of appointment of the Board members to more clearly show its independence and impartiality and to win the confidence of the parties. The Committee notes that KESK reiterates that the Board’s composition raises concerns about its independence. The Committee notes that the Government, for its part, reiterates that the Public Employee Arbitration Board, regulated by Acts Nos 4688 and 6289, and a 2012 regulation, consists of 11 members who decide by majority vote, with the Chair’s vote breaking ties; its decisions are final, legally binding as collective agreements, and aims to ensure impartiality through a Chair selected from senior judiciary members. The Committee further notes that, according to the Government, recent discussions on its composition and collective bargaining took place during national advisory and labour assemblies involving Government, social partners and ILO representatives. Recalling the need to consider reviewing, in consultation with the social partners, the method of appointment of the Board members, the Committee requests the Government to report on any new developments in this matter.

Welcoming the request for technical assistance addressed to the ILO in October 2025, the Committee trusts that the Government will be in a position to take the necessary measures to address the points raised in this comment in the near future.