Afficher en : Francais - Espagnol
Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body
Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body- 65. The Committee last examined this case (submitted in August 2012) at
its March 2016 meeting [see 377th Report, paras 58–66], when it requested the Government
to provide a copy of the ruling in the judicial proceedings regarding the dismissal of
35 workers from the Togo Footwear Industry and Trade Inc., (footwear company) and
information on the outcome of court proceedings concerning the company’s intention to
carry out collective dismissals for economic reasons. The Committee also requested the
Government to provide a copy of the inquiry report relating to the dismissal of 20
workers from the Ceha Office Furniture Limited Company (furniture company) and a copy of
the judgment in the judicial proceedings regarding the rejection of the application of
the United Metal Workers’ Union for a certificate of competence. The Committee further
requested the complainant organization, IndustriALL Global Union, to provide information
on the deliverance of the certificate of competence to Petrol-İş for the Erze Packaging
and Plastic Industry and Trade Inc. (packaging company).
- 66. The Government provides follow-up information in a communication
dated 28 November 2017. Regarding the alleged anti-union nature of the dismissal of 35
workers from the footwear company, the Government indicates that an inspection report
dated 15 May 2012 determined that the termination of the employment contract of 35
workers, including 33 members of the Leather and Shoe Workers’ Union of Turkey
(Deri-İş.) in April and May 2012, was contrary to section 31 (protection against
anti-union discrimination) of the now repealed Act on Trade Unions No. 2821. The
Government indicates that the judicial proceedings regarding the reinstatement lawsuits
of the dismissed workers are ongoing. Concerning the dispute around the union’s
certificate of competence, the Government indicates that the company’s challenge of the
Ministry’s decision granting the certificate of competence was dismissed by the court
and the Ministry issued a certificate of competence. However, the Government reports
that the certificate was invalid as the union submitted the application after the
allowed legal period.
- 67. With regard to the dismissal of 20 workers from the furniture
company, the Government reiterates the result of the February 2013 inspection report,
which indicated that the issue could have been examined under section 25 of Law No. 6356
concerning the “guarantee of union freedom” but the workers whose employment contracts
had been terminated applied to the judiciary regarding “union pressure”. It was
therefore evaluated that the decision to be made by the judiciary would concern those
workers who worked at the company, who had been union members but were withdrawn from
their membership. As a result, the inspectors did not express an opinion about
violations of the “guarantee of union freedom” protected by section 25 of Law No.
6356.
- 68. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the
Government. With regard to the allegations involving the footwear company, the Committee
recalls that, at the time of its previous examination of the case, judicial proceedings
were pending in relation to both the dismissal of 35 union members in April and May 2012
and the subsequent dismissal for alleged economic reasons of all other union members.
The Committee notes from the Government’s report that the labour inspection found the
initial 35 dismissals to be contrary to section 31 of the now repealed Act on Trade
Unions, which prohibited anti-union discrimination, and observes that no updated
information has been provided on the status of either of the judicial proceedings
concerning dismissals of trade unionists since 2017. Regarding the dismissal of 20
workers from the furniture company, the Committee understands from the information
provided by the Government that the labour inspection determined that the anti-union
allegations were to be addressed by the judiciary as “union pressure” under section 26
of the Act on Trade Unions and not as a violation of the “guarantee of union freedom”
under section 25 but observes that no information has been provided on the outcome of
these proceedings. While acknowledging the time that has elapsed since the incidents
took place, the Committee requests the Government and the complainant to provide updated
information in the outcome of the above-mentioned court proceedings and on the measures
taken to redress all anti-union dismissals as determined by the labour inspection or
courts.
- 69. The Committee further recalls that, in both companies, the
complainant raised issues relating to the unions’ certificates of competence. The
Committee notes the Government’s information that, in the footwear company, the court
rejected the employer’s challenge to the certificate of competence but that the
certificate was nevertheless considered to be invalid since the union submitted its
request outside of the legal period for doing so. It further observes that the
Government does not provide any information regarding the judicial proceedings
challenging the Ministry’s rejection of the application for a certificate of competence
by the United Metal Workers’ Union on the grounds that the furniture company had
recourse to intensive recruitment in order to defeat its majority status. While
acknowledging the time that has elapsed since the initiation of these proceedings, the
Committee requests the Government and the complainant to provide information on the
outcome of the judicial proceedings in question. In the absence of information regarding
the certificate of competence of Petrol-İş for the packaging company requested from the
complainant, the Committee will not pursue the examination of this matter.
