Cas individuel (CAS) - Discussion : 2007, Publication : 96ème session CIT (2007)

Convention (n° 87) sur la liberté syndicale et la protection du droit syndical, 1948 - Türkiye (Ratification: 1993)

A Government representative informed the Committee that his presentation would be confined to the seven main points raised by the Committee of Experts in its observation. The first point concerned the exclusion of a number of public employees from the right to organize (sections 3(a) and 15 of Act No. 4688). The Committee of Experts had noted that the definition of "public servant" in section 3(a) of Act No. 4688 referred only to those who were permanently employed or had completed their probation period, which was contrary to Article 2 of the Convention. Moreover, the exceptions provided in section 15 of Act No. 4688 led, according to the Committee of Experts, to the denial of the right to organize of the judiciary, public officials in high administrative ranks and those in "positions of trust". He announced that section 4(2) of Act No. 5620 of 4 April 2007 had already amended section 3(a) of Act No. 4688 so as to allow public employees working under fixed-term contracts (referred to as "contract personnel") to join public servants' unions. Therefore, permanent employment was no longer a requirement for membership to public servants' unions. Furthermore the Tripartite Consultation Board had unanimously agreed at its meeting of 10 May 2005 to recommend the amendment of section 3(a) of Act No. 4688 so as to allow public employees to form and join unions during their probation periods.

The second point raised by the Committee of Experts concerned the criteria under which the Ministry of Labour determined the branch of activity covering a worksite, and the implications of that determination on the workers' right to form and join organizations of their own choosing. In order to deal with inter-union disputes effectively, section 60 of Act No. 2821 envisaged careful demarcations of branches of activity by taking account of the opinions of labour and employer confederations and international standards. Should a dispute arise as to which branch an establishment belonged to, the Ministry of Labour was empowered by section 4 to make the said determination upon the request of the party concerned. Therefore, the Ministry was called upon only in cases where an inter-union dispute arose, and it was possible in any case to appeal against the Ministry's decision before the courts. The draft bill on trade unions merged some branches in order to make a more rational classification and facilitate the establishment of stronger unions. As the Committee of Experts had pointed out, the establishment of broad bands of classification for the purpose of clarifying the scope of industrial level unions was not in itself incompatible with the Convention. Following the proposed broad-banding of some branches, workers would still be free to join any union established in the respective branch. Further, the criterion used by the Ministry in making the said determination was the main activity performed in the establishment and "other activities auxiliary to the main activity" were deemed to fall within the branch to which the main activity belonged.

The third point raised by the Committee of Experts concerned the overly detailed nature of the provisions of Acts Nos 2821, 2822 and 4688 on internal union affairs. In the Government's view, these provisions did not hinder the autonomy of unions, but rather were aimed at ensuring the democratic functioning of unions, protecting the rights of members and maintaining transparency in union activities. With a view to better protecting the freedom to form and join unions and simplifying and speeding up the collective bargaining process, various improvements had been envisaged in the draft bills amending Acts Nos 2821 and 2822. The Committee of Experts had noted these reform proposals with interest. Among positive developments which had already materialized, reference shall be made to the adoption in 2004 of a more liberal Associations Act No. 5253 and the replacement of Act No. 2908, as well as the enactment of a new Penal Code No. 5237 in 2005, which introduced strong penal sanctions against acts of anti-union discrimination.

The fourth point raised by the Committee of Experts concerned the removal of union executive bodies from office in case of non-observance of legal requirements and the suspension of union officers' term during candidacy in local or general elections, as well as the termination of their status of union official in case of election. Section 10 of Act No. 4688 empowered the Ministry as well as any trade union member to apply to the courts with a request to remove from office union executive bodies who had avoided holding the general congress. It should be emphasized that the Ministry's role was simply to draw attention to a possible discrepancy or contravention and that the final judgement belonged to the independent court. The rationale behind this provision was again, to protect members' rights and to safeguard democratic processes in unions. Concerning the termination of the mandate of union leaders who won in general or local elections, an amendment to article 82 of the Constitution would be required in order to enact relevant legislation on this matter.

The fifth point raised by the Committee of Experts concerned the right to strike in the public sector. Workers engaged in public services under employment contracts enjoyed the right to strike just like workers in the private sector. With respect to public servants in general however, there was no ongoing work at present on this matter. In fact, recognition of the right to strike for public servants required an amendment to the Constitution. In line with the views expressed by the Committee of the Experts, the Government was planning to launch a personnel reform in the public sector whereby "public servants" in the narrow sense of the term, i.e. those exercising authority in the name of the State, would be defined first and then carefully distinguished from other public employees. Work on this reform programme was continuing as a priority.

The sixth point concerned the restrictions on the right to strike under Act No. 2822. The draft Bill which aimed to amend Act No. 2822 envisaged the deletion from the text of certain occupations or services where strike action was not permissible. Examples were the exploration, drilling, production and distribution of petroleum, production of lignite feeding thermal power plants, urban transportation by land, rail and sea, etc. Further, the question of how a collective agreement could be reached in cases where strikes were banned in some of the establishments which would be covered by an enterprise-level collective agreement, was a disputed matter. The draft provided that an agreement reached subsequent to strike action in certain establishments would also apply to the workers of the establishment where strikes were prohibited. Limits on the number of strike pickets had been brought into the Turkish industrial relations system because the legislation strictly prohibited the use of strike replacements by the employer. On the excessively long waiting and notice period before a strike could be called, the draft Bill foresaw a simpler, faster and more flexible mediation mechanism and shortened the negotiation time considerably. The Constitution of Turkey recognized strike action only for disputes arising during the collective bargaining process and restricted certain types of actions such as strikes for political purposes and sympathy strikes; these restrictions emanated from article 54 of the Constitution, which banned such forms of industrial action.

The seventh point concerned the lawsuit against the Confederation of Progressive Trade Unions of Turkey (DISK), one of several confederations, in respect of the election of its representatives. The lawsuit had been filed against DISK on 21 June 2001. The 5th Labour Court of Istanbul had rejected the request to suspend the activities of DISK or dissolve the organization. This decision in favour of DISK had been upheld by the Court of Cassation on 22 December 2004. So a final decision had been handed down in this case.

The constitutional basis of the requirement of "ten years of active employment" in order to be elected to trade union office had already been removed in 2001. The remaining provision in section 14 of Act No. 2821 had been repealed through the adoption of Act No. 5675 of 26 May 2007.

On the progress made with regard to the draft bills, the Government representative indicated that in the meeting of the Tripartite Consultation Board held on 28 December 2006, it had been decided to carry on further work in order to identify the agreed-upon provisions as well as the items on which there was no agreement as yet between the social partners. The latest meeting was held on 29 May 2007 with the participation of the main labour and employer confederations: TISK, TÜRK-IS, HAK-IS, DISK, KAMU-SEN, KESK, MEMUR-SEN and BASK. The Minister had proposed to carry out further work jointly with the social partners in order to give the draft bills their final form before holding the general parliamentary elections in July. The proposal had not been accepted by the presidents of the confederations, who had claimed that the process of general elections, which had already begun, did not make it feasible to conduct such work. Therefore, submission of the draft bills to the Grand National Assembly would be postponed until after the finalization of the general elections. The Government representative finally thanked the ILO for its continuing support in raising labour standards in the world and in Turkey.

The Employer members recalled that this case had been discussed fairly regularly in the 1990s until 1997. After a nine year gap, it had been discussed again in 2005. The Committee of Experts had on a number of occasions noted developments in this case with satisfaction or interest, and this year again it noted with interest the draft bills amending Acts Nos 2821 and 2822. In trying to appreciate the comments of the Committee of Experts, the degree of change that constituted progress in a certain case was not always clear. While the information provided by the Government representative indicated some change, the essence of it was similar to what had already been presented before the Committee in 2005. Furthermore, the Employer members were surprised that the Government had not addressed first and foremost the comments of the Committee of Experts calling for investigations on allegations of acts of violence. They underlined in this respect that respect for civil liberties was a necessary prerequisite to the effective implementation of the Convention. They hoped and expected that the Government would provide a report to the Committee of Experts on the issues of violence. As for the draft legislation covering specific areas, it was up to the Committee of Experts to provide an appraisal. Overall, the Government seemed to be gradually heading to implementation of the Convention. It seemed however that the rhythm of reform had slowed down compared to the information provided in 2005 and there was a need for greater urgency to be placed on measures to implement the Convention because of its fundamental nature.

The Worker members thanked the Committee of Experts for their detailed analysis of the situation of freedom of association in Turkey, which was being examined this year for the tenth time since 1990. The Government was either taking its time to take action or hiding behind meaningless excuses, so as not to take effective measures to address the numerous requests made by the Committee, and it was not interested in the technical assistance of the Office. In 2006, three Turkish trade union organizations as well as the ICFTU had sent their observations to the Committee of Experts reporting interference by the authorities in internal trade union matters, repeated violations of national legislation respecting the right to strike and interference by the authorities in the formulation of trade union statutes, as well as violence by the police and further arrests of unionists during peaceful demonstrations. The Committee of Experts, however, had not examined all these issues despite the precise information provided, demonstrating how the legislative arsenal was being used to harass, threaten and imprison trade unionists. On the other hand, it had made comments on many legal questions. For example, the information sent once again by the Government on the adoption in 2004 of a new Associations Act and a new Penal Code could not be examined for lack of a translation of these new provisions. The Government had also referred once again some of the progress made in the various bills that had already been supplied to the Committee of Experts. It had nevertheless been holding consultations with the social partners on these matters for years, and the lack of real progress could only be due to either the employers or the Government. Certain problems that had been clearly identified, such as the denial of the right to establish and join trade unions of their own choosing for a number of workers in the public sector, in particular those of the Department of Justice and Security, were being ignored by the Government. The Convention, however, provided for the right of workers, without any distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations of their own choosing, with the sole exception being allowed for members of the armed forces and the police. Therefore, the announced legislative reform needed to conform strictly without delay to this essential principle. Furthermore, the Committee of Experts noted that the exercise of the right to strike was restricted or prohibited for public service employees; that general strikes and sympathy strikes were forbidden; that the concept of essential services was interpreted in an excessively broad manner; and that the period of notification of strikes was excessive and continued to be so in the new bill, since the envisaged reduction to 30 days was totally unsatisfactory taking into account the pressure to which workers were subjected during such periods.

It was important to analyse the numerous legal breaches in the light of the situation in the field, which had been denounced by the trade union movement, and which deserved more attention in the report of the Committee of Experts. In this respect, this year, the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) was considering the possibility of informing the Committee of Experts of the fact that in February 2006, 35 members of the Tekstil-DISK trade union had been dismissed by the administration of a textile factory because the union was on the verge of achieving a majority of unionized workers in the enterprise; and in September of the same year, 22 workers of a British packaging enterprise had been dismissed because of their union activities; furthermore, judicial inquiries were on some occasions conducted against trade unionists accused of having posted a union calendar. In Tuzla, in May 2006, the police had seriously injured and imprisoned a group of dockers whose contracts had been breached by a large Turkish employer who had refused to pay their wage arrears. This was a brief overview of the kinds of issues that were submitted to the Committee of Experts every year and made the case of Turkey look like a compilation of case-law by the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Committee of Experts.

The Worker member of Turkey stated that the draft bill amending the Collective Labour Agreements, Strikes and Lock-outs Act No. 2822 aimed at complying with the Convention and European Union regulations. However, the provisions in Act No. 2822 which restricted the right to bargain collectively and raised obstacles to the right to strike, continued to be in force. Under article 54 of the Constitution, political strikes, sympathy strikes, general strikes, workplace occupations, go-slow strikes, actions aiming to decrease workplace productivity and any other type of resistance were forbidden. In the new draft bill, the penalties for illegal strike action were excessive.

The right to organize and bargain collectively was a fundamental right. By virtue of Act No. 5170 of 7 May 2004 a provision was inserted in article 90 of the Constitution to the effect that in case of conflict between international treaties on fundamental rights and freedoms and domestic laws, the provisions of international treaties were to prevail. Thus, Act No. 2822 should be amended so as to be brought in line with the Convention.

Employees in the banking sector were also deprived of the right to strike on the basis of Act No. 2822 on the ground that such strikes would paralyse social life and have long-term irremediable repercussions. Unfortunately, the Government still proposed to maintain this provision in the draft bill. The Committee on Freedom of Association had made clear that the banking sector was not an essential service in the strict sense of the term and strikes in this sector should not be subject to restrictions. Moreover, the bans on strikes in the water, electricity and natural gas sectors were no longer justified as these public enterprises had been privatized due to the economic policies implemented by the Government. Thus, the definition of essential services should be reviewed and narrowed as much as possible.

The Employer member of Turkey noted that the Act of 4 April 2007 providing for the prohibition on establishing trade unions for public sector employees had been abolished, and that workers were entitled to affiliate with trade unions in the public sector. Progress had also been made via the adoption of the Act of 26 May 2007, which repealed the condition that a public official had to be employed for ten years in order to become a founding member of a trade union. The Government had also indicated to the European Union on 17 April 2007 that it undertook, in the framework of the alignment of legislation to European standards, to carry out legal amendments regarding the right to collective bargaining by the end of 2007.

He noted that, in order to realize a timely alignment of national legislation, the Government had already prepared two draft laws, on which consensus had not yet been reached; discussions were continuing on this issue. He hoped that the Government would fulfil its undertaking to the European Union and stated that the employers of Turkey were willing to assist in this respect.

Another Worker member of Turkey, as a representative of public servants' trade unions in Turkey, wished to inform the Committee about the situation of trade union rights in the public sector. Despite the ratification of several Conventions, there were many problems in law and practice. Up to 2001, public service trade unions had claimed the rights set out in ILO Conventions and had carried their activities in the absence of any legislative provisions in that respect. As a result of their struggles, limited rights had been recognized in 2001. However, there remained five main problems. Firstly, although Act No. 4688 recognized certain aspects of the right to organize of public employees, it contained many restrictions on the administration of trade unions, the right to organize protection of trade union members, the right to strike and the right to collective bargaining. Since 2002, collective bargaining between public employees' trade unions and the Public Employers' Committee had been undertaken on five occasions, but only one agreement had been concluded. The protocol signed in 2005 had not been applied in its entirety and 26 out its 34 articles, including provisions on socio-economic benefits (such as reinstatement in the case of anti-union discrimination) were not implemented by the Government. Moreover, in accordance with section 34 of Act No. 4688, the protocol did not have binding force. Secondly, the Reconciliation Board did not have any power, as its recommendations did not have legal force and had never been implemented. Thirdly, many public employees were banned from establishing or joining trade unions. Fourthly, trade union representatives suffered anti-union discrimination and although some were reinstated on the basis of court decisions, most suffered prejudice due to court delays (three to seven years). Thus, it was not enough for the Government to say that the enactment of a new Penal Code in 2005 had introduced strong penal sanctions against acts of anti-union discrimination, as it was ineffective in practice. Finally, the tripartite system established by the Economic and Social Council Act in 2001 was not working properly. The Council was supposed to meet yearly at the invitation of the Government, but the social partners had not been invited to meet since 2005. Furthermore, the decisions of the Council had not been taken seriously. He appealed for support in overcoming these serious problems and reaching a solution.

An observer representing the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) stated that the requirement that unions meet two membership thresholds - 10 per cent of all workers in a given branch of economic activity, and 50 per cent of all workers in a given workplace - violated the principle of freedom of association. Unions were not able to represent the interests of workers without satisfying these two prohibitive criteria. Moreover, the latter requirement meant that, in practice, 49 per cent of the workers in a given workplace could not be represented by the union of their choice.

Even where unions were able to meet these restrictive requirements, she observed that, they were further hindered by the fact that 50 per cent of the country's total economic activity was informal. As unions were required to register their members using their social insurance numbers, and most informal workers lacked such numbers, the result was the denial - to over half of the country's workforce - of the fundamental right to organize and join organizations of their choosing. The requirement that workers register their union membership in public notaries was also unduly burdensome; registration was difficult, as public notaries worked only during official working hours, and placed a financial burden on trade unions.

With respect to the right to strike, she noted that unions were prohibited from organizing sympathy strikes and that the Council of Ministers could also ban strikes in certain sectors and in certain cases. Public employees were also denied the right to strike and to collective bargaining and public service union leaders were liable to criminal charges for organizing peaceful demonstrations calling for trade union rights.

Many other violations of trade union rights persisted. For instance, the fact that the branches of activity were determined by the Labour Ministry and the fact that, although unions could take legal action against the decisions of the Ministry, court processes were very lengthy, taking between three and seven years, during which time their activities often collapsed. Despite the promises to change the trade union laws made by several Turkish governments since 1980, around one-fifth of the total members of DISK unions who had joined in the last three years had lost their jobs in the initial phase of their organizing campaigns. She expressed gratitude to DISK's brother organizations for their solidarity and support and indicated that brochures on the trade union situation in Turkey, prepared by DISK, were available for distribution to the members of the Committee.

The Worker member of Singapore observed that this was a long-standing case involving serious violations of the Convention. The basic right to organize and to bargain collectively of Turkey's workers were severely curtailed, and they had been suffering for a long time. She said that it was time for the Committee to take a long, hard look at the case and issue clear recommendations on what it wished the Turkish Government to do in order to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. It was not for lack of support that the Government was not making the necessary changes. Indeed, Turkey had received ILO technical assistance on several occasions. A report had also been prepared by the EU-Turkey Joint Consultation Committee containing many useful recommendations, none of which had been followed up. The question in essence was whether there was sufficient political will to bring about those changes; the indications up to now suggested that the political will was weak.

She observed that several Turkish laws - the Trade Unions Act, the Collective Labour Agreements, Strikes and Lock-outs, and the Public Employees' Trade Union Act - were in serious violation of the Convention. The Government had informed the Committee of Experts that draft amendments to these laws were being prepared. The Committee of Experts had in turn observed that the draft amendments contained improvements which addressed some of the questions it had raised previously. In this respect, she warned that it was too early to celebrate as she did not share the optimism of the Committee of Experts. Governments had too often indicated in the past that amendments had been submitted to the social partners for consultation, or to the legislature, only to state one or two years later, that the bills had been withdrawn as they required further consideration. She hoped that the present draft amendments would not suffer the same fate.

She noted the persistence of numerous violations of workers' rights and interference in the internal affairs of unions. The teachers' union Egitim-Sen, for instance, had been forced to delete an objective in its statutes providing for "education in the mother tongue". The union had taken this issues to the courts, and the case was now pending before the European courts. She found this requirement particularly ridiculous, as in her country it was compulsory for primary school children to learn their own mother tongues in order to preserve the nation's cultural diversity.

She stated that there were also cases pending against the DISK and some of its affiliates for allegedly violating legislation forbidding organizations to elect officials who had worked for less than ten years in the relevant sector. The right of unions to elect their officials in full freedom was a fundamental one; if the Government did not interfere with the right of employers' organizations to elect their officials, why should it interfere with the right of unions to do the same? In this regard, she called upon the Committee of Experts to request further information on the lawsuit against DISK over the election of its representatives.

Another restriction was the requirement for workers to join or resign from unions by registering with the public notary. Although this requirement had been removed for those wishing to join trade unions, it remained in place for resignation from a trade union and was therefore and obstacle for workers wishing to change and join other unions. With regard to the requirement of the presence of a Government observer at the general congresses of unions, she stated that this restriction was puzzling, as government officials ought to be occupying themselves with the challenges of economic growth. Other infringements of the Convention included the prohibition upon union officials from continuing their union work if they stood as candidates in political elections; requiring public servants to complete a "trial period" before joining a public servants' trade union; the removal of trade union leaders considered to have breached the law on union elections; and the determination of branches of economic activity by the Labour Ministry. All of these constituted serious violations and interference in union democracy.

She noted that the Government was capable of instituting changes when it so wished, as demonstrated by the reforms - including reforms on difficult and sensitive issues - it had undertaken to comply with the demands of accession to the European Union. The Government also enjoyed a majority in Parliament and was therefore in a strong position to effect change; whether it possessed the political will to implement its obligations remained to be seen.

As the Government had indicated that it intended to change the law, it would not be too difficult to declare a moratorium on the prosecution of union officials under the above laws. Such a moratorium would go a long way towards demonstrating seriousness and sincerity in wishing to comply with the Convention; she urged the Government to seriously consider this proposal. The proposed moratorium would only be a first step towards compliance. To fully comply with the Convention, the Government needed to seriously review its laws in line with the Committee of Experts' recommendations. She urged the Government to do so immediately.

The Government representative stated, with respect to the issue of anti-union violence, that Turkey possessed a law on demonstrations and marches that set out limits for such action. The country sometimes experienced political unrest, and sometimes those limits were breached; all who violated the law were subject to the same treatment, whether they were union members or not.

With regard to the draft laws, which had yet to be adopted, he stated that in their drafting the Government had sought the participation of the social partners. The Government was seeking to reach a consensus among the social partners, even in areas where they disagreed; the Ministry was in the process of tabling these laws before Parliament.

With regard to the interference in union statutes referred to by certain speakers, he stated that the model provisions existed to foster harmony and transparency in union statutes, and merely specified such matters as a union's address or the number of members; otherwise, the Government did not dictate the contents of union statutes. He stated that he had earlier addressed the other matters that were raised by certain speakers. For instance, the requirement of ten years' employment to be eligible for union office had been removed both from the Constitution and the legislation. As for the Associations Act, it had been liberalized. Under the provisions of the new Act, the requirement that a Government observer be present at unions' general assemblies had been repealed. The new Associations Act also allowed unions greater freedom to engage in international activities, such as establishing offices abroad and affiliating with international organizations. The only requirement in this respect was that due notification had to be given to provincial and district governors for the receipt of foreign aid. With regard to the prohibition on union officials seeking political office, he remarked that this stemmed from article 82 of the Constitution, which provided that trade union work was one of several types of work incompatible with the holding of political office.

With respect to the right to strike in the public sector, he stated that a significant number of public employees were working under contracts, and therefore had the same rights as employees in the private sector, including the exercise of the right to strike; the case of Turkish Airways was one such example. With regard to strike bans, he maintained that where the right to strike was denied alternative arrangements were in place, as demonstrated by the compulsory arbitration procedure that was available to such classes of workers as firefighters. The compulsory collective bargaining period with which the parties were required to comply before the right to strike could be exercised was also being shortened - the 60-day negotiation period would be shortened to 30.

Information regarding the draft laws had already been sent to the Committee of Experts. With regard to the comments of DISK on the double criteria requirement for gaining authorization to engage in collective bargaining, the Government had been willing to modify the 10 per cent requirement. However, the Turkish labour movement had refused to support the repeal of this provision, so that no consensus had been reached on this issue. Nevertheless, the draft laws lifted this requirement and would hopefully soon become law.

With respect to the informal sector, all workers working under an employment contract, whether in the informal sector or otherwise, were entitled to join trade unions; the law did not require social insurance numbers as a prerequisite for union membership. The problem was simply logistic, as the computer system used by the Labour Ministry to determine the majority status of a union could only register trade union members with their social insurance numbers. To address this matter, he urged trade unions to organize workers in the informal sector and aid them in obtaining social insurance numbers until the Ministry could modify the computer system presently in place. In addition, the requirement of registering through a public notary was in the process of being removed. He hoped that consensus would be obtained on this issue.

He asserted that the notion that branches of economic activity were determined by the Ministry was false. The process for determining such branches was provided for by law, taking into account such factors as international labour standards. With regard to the manner in which the Ministry determined which unions belonged to which branch of activity, this was explained in the Government's report and the possibility of judicial appeal against the Ministry's decision was also provided for.

On the subject of lengthy court procedures, to say that court decision took between three and seven years to be handed down was an exaggeration. Some laws set out specific periods of time for each stage of litigation, from trial to appeal. A more accurate estimate of the duration of the legal process was six to seven months.

Finally, in respect of the Egitim-Sen case mentioned by one speaker, he stated that the union concerned, against whose status a lawsuit for dissolution was filed due to a provision in its statutes regarding "education in the mother tongue", had the case dropped after having amended its statutes.

The Employer members said that the Government had confirmed the impression they had expressed at the beginning of the session that this was going to be a complicated case. A report was of course needed on the final comments that the Government representative had just made; but more was required. The Government had indicated in its final comments that if social consensus were achieved, many of the problems could be solved. The speaker emphasized, however, that social consensus did not necessarily imply compliance with international labour standards. It was urgent for the Government to clarify the provisions of the legislation, so that the Committee of Experts could clearly assess where the gaps were in the Turkish legislation in relation to the requirements of the Convention.

The Worker members expressed their frustration with the statements of the Government representative. The lack of tangible progress in this case was as obvious as it was unacceptable. The Government had announced a series of amendments to the legislation as a sign of progress. It referred to a legislative amendment, for example, under which trade union members would no longer be subject to the requirement of a minimum of ten years of employment in the same branch of activity to be eligible for management positions in the executive bodies of their trade union. This provision, which had been contained in the Constitution had been repealed, but had been maintained in the Trade Union Act on which the lawsuit against DISK was based. The exact status of these amendments was not clear, and the Committee should not simply take note of these changes. The Government needed to provide these texts for examination by the Committee of Experts so that next year the Conference Committee could assess whether any real progress had been made. The legislation that was criticized was still in force and it was incomprehensible that this case had been mentioned in the report of the Committee of Experts as a case of progress.

The Worker members said that in the absence of real progress next year they would propose that the conclusions adopted by this Committee be included in a special paragraph of its report. Furthermore, the Government should invite a high-level mission of the Office to help it take the measures necessary to rapidly bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee took note of the statement made by the Government representative and the debate that followed. The Committee observed that the Committee of Experts' comments referred to a certain number of discrepancies between the legislation and the Convention regarding the rights of workers and employers in the public and private sectors without distinction whatsoever to establish and join organizations of their own choosing, and the right of workers' organizations to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom and to organize their activities without interference by the authorities. The Committee noted that several national workers' organizations had also presented comments on the application of the Convention, including allegations of Government interference in trade union activities, police violence and arrests of trade unionists.

The Committee took note of the Government's statements according to which: section 3(a) of Act No. 4688 had been amended on 4 April 2007 so as to allow public employees working under fixed-term contracts (referred to as "contract personnel") to join public servants unions; it was launching, as a matter of priority, a personnel reform in the public sector whereby public servants in the narrow sense of the term would be defined and carefully distinguished from other public employees in respect of restrictions on the right to strike; a draft bill aimed to amend Act No. 2822 by envisaging the deletion altogether of certain occupations or services where strike action was not permissible; the lawsuit against DISK had been resolved with the final verdict issued by the Court of Cassation on 22 December 2004; the requirement of ten years of active employment as a worker in order to be elected to union executive bodies had finally been repealed by Act No. 5675 of 26 May 2007; it was proposed to continue joint work with the social partners in the Tripartite Consultation Board.

While noting the information provided by the Government concerning certain steps taken towards the fuller application of the Convention, the Committee was not clear as to the actual status or content of the recent laws to which the Government had referred. It regretted, however, that these steps were insufficient in light of the numerous occasions on which this Committee and the Committee of Experts had urged the Government to take rapid steps to bring its law and practice into harmony with the Convention.

The Committee deeply regretted that the Government had still not provided any information in reply to the serious allegations made to the Committee of Experts relating to police violence and arrests of trade unionists and government interference in trade union activities, including the banning of union-related booklets, posters, etc. The Committee emphasized that respect for basic civil liberties was an essential prerequisite to the exercise of freedom of association and requested the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure a climate free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind so that workers and employers could fully and freely exercise their rights under the Convention. It urged the Government to reply in detail to these allegations and to report back to the Committee of Experts this year on all steps taken to ensure respect for the abovementioned fundamental principles.

The Committee urged the Government to provide detailed and complete information on all pending issues, as well as all relevant legislative texts, in its next report to the Committee of Experts and expressed the hope that it would be in a position to note in the very near future that significant progress had been made in ensuring full conformity with the Convention. The Committee requested the Government to accept a high-level ILO mission with a view to assisting it in rapidly taking the necessary measures to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention.