Allegations: The complainant organization alleges legislative and practical
obstacles to the certification process for collective bargaining and denounces concrete
impediments to collective bargaining in a subcontractor company operating in postal
services, as well as instances of union-busting and anti-union dismissals
- 646. The complaint is contained in communications from the Labour Union
of Post Office, Phone and Telecommunication Workers of Turkey (PTT Sen) dated 16 May and
4 October 2024.
- 647. The Government provides its observations in communications received
on 22 December 2024 and 12 September 2025.
- 648. Türkiye has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of
the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and
Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).
A. The complainant’s allegations
A. The complainant’s allegations- 649. In its communications dated 16 May and 4 October 2024, the
complainant alleges legislative and practical obstacles to the certification process for
collective bargaining and denounces concrete impediments to collective bargaining in a
subcontractor company operating at the publicly owned postal services, as well as
instances of union-busting and anti-union dismissals.
- 650. In particular, the complainant alleges that section 48 of the Act on
Unions and Collective Agreements No. 6356 (Act on Trade Unions), which sets the
workplace and industry-wide thresholds for unions to be certified as collective
bargaining agents, allows employers to contest such certification in court, after it has
been granted by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security (MoLSS). According to the
complainant, employers use this option to delay the collective bargaining process, as a
union under a certification lawsuit does not have the authority to start collective
bargaining or to go on strike until the end of the procedure, which can last up to two
years. This gives employers a significant amount of time to engage in union busting
activities, including dismissal of those driving unionization and intimidation or
bribery of union members. Some employers seek to further delay the ruling by knowingly
applying to a court with no jurisdiction. After lengthy proceedings and union-busting,
many workers choose to resign from their union. The complainant indicates that the
Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (Committee of
Experts) previously acknowledged this issue and requested the Government to monitor the
use of the objection proceedings with a view to preventing and punishing abuses.
- 651. The complainant further alleges concrete impediments to collective
bargaining at Saf and Avrasya General Partnership, a subcontractor company operating at
the publicly owned postal services (the subcontractor company). In particular, it
indicates that the PTT Sen, which was established by workers employed by subcontractor
enterprises operating in the postal services and currently represents 1.25 per cent of
the industry’s workers, thus surpassing the necessary 1 per cent threshold to be able to
engage in collective bargaining, managed to organize workers at the subcontractor
company in Marmara region and applied to the MoLSS for certification to represent those
workers in collective bargaining. The complainant received the certification in
September 2020, but the subcontractor company challenged the certification in court, and
the process took over two years to conclude. While the court ruled in favour of the
union in October 2022, the complainant denounces the lengthy procedure and points out
that allowing this challenge is futile since union registration is only possible through
a Government portal, with the court having access to all the relevant numbers and
documents to assess its representativity.
- 652. The complainant alleges that, even once its certification was
approved by the court, the subcontractor company further stalled the process of
collective bargaining by ignoring official phone calls for negotiation rounds, which led
to the expiry of the legal negotiating period. The case was then referred to a mediator
and ended in official disagreement in February 2023. At that point, the law requires a
strike ballot among union members, which can be held if the vote request is signed by
one quarter of the company’s workers. The complainant alleges that while the union was
able to secure the necessary signatures, its request was ultimately rejected by the
MoLSS because some of the worker signatories were no longer employed by the
subcontractor and, in March 2023, the court cancelled the union’s certification for
collective bargaining. The complainant clarifies that due to the lengthy certification
procedure, the contract between the subcontractor company and the postal services
expired in July 2022, after which a new subcontractor took over the contract. In order
to keep their jobs, most of the workers of the previous subcontractor company had to
resign and apply to work for the new subcontractor. While there are currently efforts to
collect the required signatures and organize workers at the new subcontractor, the
complainant again expects a lengthy certification procedure and a new company to take
over the contract the year after. The complainant therefore alleges that, in the current
legal framework and, particularly, due to delays in the certification process,
subcontracted postal services workers cannot benefit from their right to organize and
collective bargaining and there is no efficient remedy for representing subcontracted
postal service workers. The complainant points out that the shortcomings of the existing
legal process were also confirmed by two separate rulings of the Supreme Court in 2024,
which stated that the lengthy legal procedures regarding objections to the determination
of the representative union, that could be manipulated by employers, constituted a clear
infringement of the constitutionally protected right of unionization. Despite these
rulings, the Government did not act to address the concerns, and the complainant
therefore requests the Government to implement the necessary reforms to the existing
legal procedures.
- 653. The complainant further reports that since its establishment in
2019, subcontractor companies operating at the postal services have hindered its trade
union activities and denounces, in particular, anti-union dismissal of four union
leaders at the subcontractor company between 2022 and 2023 because of their union
involvement. Before their dismissal, they were forced to take unpaid leave, which was
also established by the labour inspection in March 2021. According to the complainant,
the dismissals were done with impunity, in violation of national law which protects
union stewards and administrative officers from anti-union actions. The unionists
concerned filed cases before the courts which are currently pending.
B. The Government’s reply
B. The Government’s reply- 654. In its communications received on 22 December 2024 and 12 September
2025, the Government states that the right to organize and the right to enter into
collective labour agreements are firmly established in Türkiye’s Constitution. It
indicates that the Act on Trade Unions was prepared through an inclusive process
involving consultations with the social partners and reflects Türkiye’s commitment to
upholding the fundamental principles of trade union rights and freedoms, especially
Conventions Nos 87 and 98. It adds that, with this law, membership processes for labour
unions were digitalized through the Government’s e-portal, simplifying the procedure and
allowing for more efficient judicial oversight in case of disputes.
- 655. Turning to the allegations in the present case, the Government
firstly indicates that the complainant’s reference to section 48 of the Act on Trade
Unions seems to be based on a misunderstanding, since this provision exclusively governs
the procedural aspects of submitting signed collective labour agreements to public
authorities and posting them in the workplace, whereas it is section 41 of the Act that
stipulates the requirement for trade union representation and collective bargaining. The
Government adds that, to make unionization more accessible, the Government has
progressively reduced the industry threshold for union representation from 10 per cent
to 1 per cent.
- 656. Regarding the alleged judicial delays in the certification
procedure, the Government considers these to be isolated incidents resulting from
exceptional circumstances rather than systemic issues and affirms its commitment to
addressing such occurrences through continuous reviews and improvements of the legal
regulations. In particular, a compensation mechanism has been put in place to examine
applications related to delayed proceedings within one month of the investigation, trial
or final decision. In addition, the functionality of the mediation system has been
further enhanced so as to alleviate the courts’ workload and provide faster dispute
resolution, reflecting Türkiye’s dedication to improving judicial efficiency and
ensuring timely access to justice. The MoLSS also actively implements social dialogue
mechanisms to address objections to authority determinations, including through the
Tripartite Advisory Board and its sub-working committee, which periodically reviews
legislative and practical issues relating to the Act on Trade Unions, with participation
from the social partners. During the subcommittee’s meetings held in 2024 and 2025,
members discussed issues relating to trade union membership, safeguarding trade union
rights and certification with the aim of resolving challenges encountered during the
collective bargaining process, including those arising from the practice of authority
objections. According to the Government, the criticism and suggestions from the social
partners, as well as the decisions of the Constitutional Court, are taken into
consideration during these discussions. If consensus is reached, the Government acts
upon it, including through legislative amendments. The Government further affirms that
all administrative actions, including under the Act on Trade Unions, are subject to
judicial review and that mechanisms are in place to address potential rights violations
arising from delays and inefficiencies in judicial proceedings. The Constitutional Court
has previously issued rulings that certain judicial processes arising from the Act on
Trade Unions exceeded a reasonable timeframe and where that was the case, compensation
was awarded to the parties concerned and recommendations were made to enhance procedural
efficiency.
- 657. Regarding the concrete allegations against the subcontractor company
operating at the postal services, the Government indicates that, following the failure
to reach an agreement in the collective bargaining process between the union and the
subcontractor company, a strike decision was taken by the union in April 2023,
requesting a strike ballot. However, since workers who made the request were not
employed at the workplace covered by the collective bargaining on the date when the
strike decision was announced, the MoLSS rejected the request. The certification for
collective bargaining previously issued to the union therefore became invalid in
accordance with section 60(1) of the Act on Trade Unions (the authority to conclude a
collective agreement expires if the strike decision is not taken within 60 days from the
date of notification of the mediation report). The Government indicates that the
complainant filed two separate lawsuits before the administrative courts of Ankara
challenging the rejection of its strike ballot request, but these were dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction, as were the appeals to these decisions. The Government explains
that, while action taken by the MoLSS is subject to legal review, these matters are
within the jurisdiction of labour courts in the judicial branch and not the
administrative courts used by the complainant. The Government adds that the Supreme
Court had previously issued rulings invalidating the rejection of a strike vote request
in cases where workers had transferred to a new employer due to a workplace change and
this had been promptly implemented by the Government.
- 658. Regarding the allegations of anti-union acts at the subcontractor
company, the Government informs that the labour inspection conducted in February 2021
did not find evidence of unequal treatment or discrimination against workers in the
workplace but did find that trade union leaders had been forced to withdraw their union
membership and that their employment contracts were terminated. An administrative fine
was therefore imposed on the employer and another administrative fine was sought due to
the violation of the prohibition to dismiss trade unionists during a period protected by
the law. The Government adds that the four dismissed unionists filed court cases
requesting reinstatement, all of which are currently ongoing.
C. The Committee’s conclusions
C. The Committee’s conclusions- 659. The Committee observes that this case concerns allegations of
legislative and practical obstacles to the certification process for collective
bargaining, as well as instances of union-busting and anti union dismissals in a
subcontractor company in the postal services.
- 660. Regarding the alleged obstacles to collective bargaining, the
Committee firstly notes the complainant’s more general allegations that the current
legal framework, which allows employers to contest a union’s certification for
collective bargaining, is used by employers as a tactic to delay collective bargaining,
since a union under a certification lawsuit may not engage in collective bargaining
until the end of the procedure. The Committee further notes the complainant’s concerns
that a certification lawsuit can last up to two years and that such significant judicial
delays enable employers to engage in intimidation and union-busting activities, which
ultimately results in many unionists withdrawing their membership and the union losing
its bargaining certification. While the complainant argues that these obstacles
seriously restrict the right to collective bargaining and require reforms to the
existing legal procedures, the Government, for its part, considers that judicial delays
relating to certification lawsuits are isolated incidents, not systemic issues, and can
be addressed through existing measures and mechanisms, including judicial review of
administrative actions, a compensation mechanism, enhanced mediation system to decrease
the courts’ workload and social dialogue mechanisms (the Tripartite Advisory Board and
its sub-working committee).
- 661. While taking note of these mechanisms and of the Government’s views
that delays in judicial proceedings are isolated incidents, the Committee observes from
the material provided by the complainant that, in several instances, and despite some
existing procedural safeguards against unjustified objections, Türkiye’s Supreme Court
actually expressed a need to reconsider the current system considering that the lengthy
legal procedures regarding objections to the determination of the representative union
could be manipulated by the employers and constituted a clear infringement of the
constitutionally protected right of unionization. The Committee further observes in this
regard that both the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee on the
Application of Standards have previously addressed concerns of delays in court
proceedings dealing with the legal validity of unions’ collective bargaining
certifications and, stressing the potential adverse impact of lengthy proceedings on the
development of collective bargaining, requested the Government to ensure that such
proceedings are concluded within a reasonable time and to monitor the use of the
objection proceedings, with a view to preventing and punishing abuses. In line with the
above and taking note of the Government’s commitment to addressing delays in judicial
proceedings, including through improvements to the legal regulations and social dialogue
mechanisms, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in
consultation with the social partners, including legislative, to ensure that recourse to
judicial challenges to collective bargaining certifications does not have the effect of
unduly restricting the right to collective bargaining and that any unreasonable delays
in such proceedings are avoided, including through robust procedural safeguards to
prevent abuses. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any
measures taken in this respect to the Committee of Experts, to which it refers this
aspect of the case.
- 662. The Committee further notes that, to illustrate the broader
allegations above, the complainant denounces concrete impediments to collective
bargaining at a subcontractor company operating in the publicly owned postal services.
The Committee notes that the complainant denounces, on the one hand, overly lengthy
judicial proceedings following the subcontractor’s challenge to the union’s bargaining
certification, which took over two years, allowing the subcontractor company to engage
in prolonged union-busting, and, on the other hand, the employer’s tactics to further
delay collective bargaining after the issuance of the certification, which led to the
expiry of the negotiating period, unsuccessful mediation, refusal by the MoLSS to grant
a strike ballot and, ultimately, the expiry of the union’s collective bargaining
certification. The Committee notes that while the Government does not pronounce itself
on the prolonged judicial proceedings or the alleged delaying tactics by the
subcontractor company, it affirms that the union’s certification for collective
bargaining expired as the union was unable to secure a strike ballot within the
prescribed time after the end of mediation due to many workers having changed employment
for a new subcontractor. It also asserts that MoLSS actions, such as rejection of the
strike ballot, are subject to legal review, but that the objections filed by the
complainant were made to courts without jurisdiction.
- 663. The Committee understands from the above that there is no apparent
disagreement between the complainant and the Government on the factual background to the
case but that, unlike the Government, the complainant argues that the current legal
framework characterized by lengthy procedures, combined with frequent changes of
subcontractor companies and their delaying tactics, leads to a situation where
subcontracted postal service workers cannot benefit from their right to collective
bargaining. The Committee recalls in this regard that collective bargaining between the
relevant trade union and the party who determines the terms and conditions of employment
of the subcontracted/agency workers should always be possible. It pertains to the
Government to ensure, through appropriate measures, that subcontracting is not used as a
way to evade the application of the freedom of association guarantees provided for in
legislation and to ensure that trade unions representing subcontracted workers may
effectively seek to improve the living and working conditions of those whom they
represent [see Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association,
sixth edition, 2018, paras 1283 and 1413]. Further recalling that the principle that
both employers and trade unions should negotiate in good faith and make efforts to reach
an agreement means that any unjustified delay in the holding of negotiations should be
avoided [see Compilation, para. 1330], the Committee requests the Government to take the
necessary measures to ensure that conditions are in place among the subcontractor
companies at the postal services to allow subcontracted workers and their organizations
to effectively engage in collective bargaining to improve their working conditions. The
Committee also requests the Government to ensure that subcontracting does not deprive
these workers of their essential rights and requests the Government to keep it informed
of any measures taken in this respect.
- 664. Finally, the Committee notes that the complainant alleges anti-union
practices by subcontractor companies in the postal services since its establishment in
2019 and denounces, in particular, the dismissal of four trade union leaders with
impunity. The Committee notes the Government’s assertion that the labour inspection
conducted into the matter did not find evidence of unequal treatment or discrimination
but did find that four union leaders were forced to withdraw their membership and had
their contracts terminated, as a result of which an administrative fine was imposed on
the employer, and the court cases filed by the concerned individuals are currently
pending. The Committee recalls in this regard that, especially at the initial stages of
unionization in a workplace, dismissal of trade union representatives might fatally
compromise incipient attempts at exercising the right to organize, as it not only
deprives the workers of their representatives, but also has an intimidating effect on
other workers who could have envisaged assuming trade union functions or simply join the
union [see Compilation, para. 1131]. Further recalling that anti-union discrimination is
one of the most serious violations of freedom of association, as it may jeopardize the
very existence of trade unions [see Compilation, para. 1072], the Committee trusts that
the judicial proceedings concerning the four dismissed union leaders will be concluded
without delay and that the appropriate remedy will be applied, where applicable,
including reinstatement and adequate compensation, should their dismissal be found to be
connected to their trade union membership or activities. The Committee requests the
Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the judicial proceedings and to provide
a copy of the judgments.
The Committee’s recommendations
The Committee’s recommendations- 665. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the
Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
- (a) The Committee
requests the Government to take the necessary measures in consultation with the
social partners, including legislative, to ensure that recourse to judicial
challenges to collective bargaining certifications does not have the effect of
unduly restricting the right to collective bargaining and that any unreasonable
delays in such proceedings are avoided, including through robust procedural
safeguards to prevent abuses. The Committee requests the Government to provide
information on any measures taken in this respect to the Committee of Experts, to
which it refers this aspect of the case.
- (b) The Committee requests the
Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that conditions are in place
among the subcontractor companies at the postal services to allow subcontracted
workers and their organizations to effectively engage in collective bargaining to
improve their working conditions. The Committee also requests the Government to
ensure that subcontracting does not deprive these workers of their essential rights
and requests the Government to keep it informed of any measures taken in this
respect.
- (c) The Committee trusts that the judicial proceedings concerning
the four union leaders dismissed by the subcontractor will be concluded without
delay and that the appropriate remedy, where applicable, will be applied, including
reinstatement and adequate compensation, should their dismissal be found to be
connected to their trade union membership or activities. The Committee requests the
Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the judicial proceedings and to
provide a copy of the judgments.
