Interim Report - Report No 330, March 2003

1. 1077. The complaints are set out in a communication dated 28 May 2002, from the Confederation of Public Employees Trade Unions (KESK), in two communications dated 17 May 2002, from the Independent Public Works and Construction Employees’ Union (BAGIMSIZ YAPI-IMAR SEN) and the Independent Transport Union (Railways, Airports, Sea and Land Transport Services Public Employees) (BAGIMSIZ ULASIM-SEN). The latter union submitted additional allegations in September 2002.
2. 1078. The Government submitted partial observations in a communication dated 14 November 2002 and replied to the additional allegations sent by BAGIMSIZ ULASIM-SEN in a communication of 13 January 2003.
3. 1079. Turkey has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151).

A. The complainants’ allegations

• Act No. 4688 on the public employees trade unions
  1080. 1080 In its complaint of 28 May 2002, the Confederation of Public Employees Trade Unions (KESK) submits that provisions of Conventions Nos. 87, 98 and 151 are infringed by Act No. 4688 dated 26 June 2001 on the public employees’ trade unions, in the following respects:
        • (a) the definition of public employees provided in the Act which places a restriction (two year of probationary period) on public workers to establish or join a union and which is therefore incompatible with Article 2 of Convention No. 87;
        • (b) section 15 of the Act which bars a large number of public employees from the right to organize and which violates Articles 2, 3 (paragraph 2) and 9 of Convention No. 87;
        • (c) section 28 entitled “Content of the collective consultative talks” which is incompatible with Articles 4 and 6 of Convention No. 98 as well as Convention No. 151;
        • (d) section 30 granting to unions having the largest number of members the right to participate in consultative talks and which is incompatible with the principle of free and voluntary collective bargaining as enshrined in Article 4 of Convention No. 98;
        • (e) Act No. 4688 does not recognize the right to strike to public employees and therefore continues to ban the exercise of this right in the public sector, in contradiction with the international labour Conventions and the comments of the ILO supervisory bodies.
  1081. Violation in practice: Membership forms distributed by the Office of Agricultural Products in favour of Türk Tarim-Orman Sen Union and illegal establishment of the Institution Administrative Committee in Türk TELEKOM to the detriment of KESK
  1081. 1081 In its complaint, KESK contends that the Office of Agricultural Products – linked to the Ministry of Agriculture and Village Affaires – distributed to employees forms to join the Türk Tarim-Orman Sen Union, affiliated to Türkiye-Kamu-Sen that has political connections with the Government. The forms were accompanied by a covering letter from the administration – a translation of which is attached to the complaint. According to the letter, the forms were sent to the employees for their information; both the employees joining the union and those not joining were asked to return the forms in question. KESK submits that this practice infringes Article 1 of Convention No. 98.
  1082. 1082 Further, KESK refers to section 22 of Act No. 4688 providing for the establishment of institution administrative committees. The unions with the largest number of members are allowed to participate in these committees which make proposals on the conditions of work of public employees. KESK refers in addition to the date of 31 May provided for in section 30 of the Act. Under this section, the Ministry of Labour is due to determine, each year by 31 May, unions and confederations having the largest membership and that are entitled to participate in the “collective consultative talks”. KESK alleges that these provisions of Act No. 4688 were infringed and that these violations were targeted at the unions affiliated to the Confederation. Thus, Türk TELEKOM and Türk Haber-Sen established the Institution Administrative Committee for Türk TELEKOM on 29 April 2002 without awaiting the deadline date of 31 May 2002. KESK attaches to its complaint documentary evidence of the first meeting of the Committee in Türk TELEKOM.
• Violations in practice: Acts of intimidation directed at members and officers of the complainants
  1083. 1083 In its complaint, KESK alleges that since the entry into force of Act No. 4688, officers and members of unions affiliated to the Confederation have been subject to increasingly frequent pressure and penalties. KESK submits that these measures often apply by reason of the trade union activities and they mainly consist in displacing, against their will, union officers or members from one duty station to another or from one workplace to another. In support of its allegations KESK gives a list of officers and members of the Health Workers’ Union (SES), affiliated to the Confederation, who were subject to such displacements in the last six months; the list also includes names of health workers who participated in the union’s activities. The list covers 107 cases and specifies the names, the occupation, the union activities, the original city and the workplace of each of these workers and the city or workplace to which they were transferred. KESK provides another list – with the same specifications as in the first list – of 30 members and officers of Egitim-Sen, the education union affiliated to KESK, who were also displaced; the majority of the workers concerned were subject in addition to court actions by the administration. Finally, KESK supplies a list of 13 names of officers and members of affiliated unions who were subject to a number of penalties such as imprisonment (in one case), administrative sanctions or refusal of promotion.
  1084. 1084 In its complaint of 17 May 2002, the Independent Public Works and Construction Employees’ Union (BAGIMSIZ YAPI-IMAR SEN) indicates that since the entry into force of Act No. 4688, various unions are competing with each other to represent public employees. The BAGIMSIZ YAPI-IMAR SEN submits that officials of the Ministry of Construction and Housing and the Surveying Office put the union’s members under pressure with a view to forcing them to resign from the union. They also threatened workers who were considering joining the union. Theses acts of intimidations consisted of threats of changing the assignments or of lay-off; these workers also received threats concerning their chances of promotion. The complainant also alleges that the workers concerned were told that these acts resulted from “orders from the top”. In support of its allegations, BAGIMSIZ YAPI-IMAR SEN underlines that public sector officials are required by Act No. 4688 to remain impartial; they should not engage in any activity that would favour or discriminate a particular union. The Act provides for protection of public employees against any act of interference in the exercise of their right to organize, in line with ILO Conventions Nos. 87 and 151.
  1085. 1085 For its part, the Independent Transport Union (Railways, Airports, Sea and Land Transport Services Public Employees) (BAGIMSIZ ULASIM-SEN) also makes the point that there is a competition amongst unions to represent public employees since the entry into force of the Act. It further contends that officials of the Turkish State Railways subjected officers and members of the union to acts of intimidations and various pressures. It alleges that the following employees of the office of the Mersin Port Operations were threatened by the operations and port managers with transfer to other duty stations: Mr. Nazmi Vural (chief of terminal services and founding member of the union), Mr. Mehmet Yildiz (head tally clerk), Mr. Okan Nar (specialist and the current independent transport union president). Moreover, Mr. Nar’s office was ransacked and was allegedly told that “order came from the top”. Similar incidents have occurred in respect of workers of the Turkish State Railways nationwide. Death threats were even reported in this case to the authorities. In support of its allegations, BAGIMSIZ ULASIM-SEN also refers to the duty of impartiality of public employees under Act No. 4688 and to Conventions Nos. 87 and 151.
• Violations in practice: Additional allegations
• concerning acts of intimidation
  1086. 1086 In its communication of September 2002, BAGIMSIZ ULASIM-SEN contends that its members are still subject to pressure by the management of the Mersin Harbour Operations, despite the current investigation carried out by the Ministry of Transportation. In particular, the union submits further allegations of intimidations exerted on Mr. Nazmi Vural (founding member of the union) at the beginning of September 2002. Thus, during the leave of the Operations Manager and, contrary to the past practice, Mr. Vural was not designated officer in charge; rather, one of his subordinates was appointed to this position. BAGIMSIZ ULASIM-SEN points out that this is contrary to the right to organize of public employees as recognized under Convention No. 87 (and in particular to paragraph 2 of Article 3 whereby public authorities should refrain from any interference in the exercise of the right). It also infringes Article 4 of Convention No. 151 providing for adequate protection of public employees against acts of anti-union discrimination and the corresponding provision of Act No. 4688, i.e. section 18.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 1087. The Government indicates that its communication of 14 November 2002 is a response to the allegations made by the three complainants.
2. 1088. As a general comment, the Government underlines that in the preparation of Act No. 4688, the principles set forth in Conventions Nos. 87, 98 and 151 have been given due consideration and fully reflected in the provisions of the Act.
3. 1089. On the particular issues raised, the Government makes the following points:
   • (a) the definition of public employees provided in section 3 of the Act and the conditions required to become a founding member of a union are consistent with the Civil Servants Act No. 657 which provides for a maximum two-year probation for the definite acquisition of the status of public employee;
   • (b) section 15 of the Act, excluding some public employees from the scope of the Act, results from the fact that the recognition of the right to organize in the public sector is a recent experience in Turkey; further, the exclusion of some specific categories of public employees is consistent with paragraph 2 of Article 1 of Convention No. 151 which specifies that “the extent to which the guarantees provided for in this Convention shall apply to high-level employees whose functions are normally considered as policy-making or managerial, or to employees whose duties are of a highly confidential nature, shall be determined by national laws or regulations”;
   • (c) section 29 of the Act refers to the “parties” to collective consultative talks and affords for the necessary mechanisms whereby collective negotiations are carried out between the public employers and public employees’ unions;
   • (d) section 18 of the Act prevents any act of anti-union discrimination against unions’ members and officers who are therefore unable to perform their duties in full freedom and without any influence or pressure;
   • (e) section 23, concerning the election and the activities of workplace union representatives, fully reflects the principles embodied in Article 3 of Convention No. 87 (right to elect unions’ representatives in full freedom) and Article 6 of Convention No. 151 (facilities afforded to unions’ representatives).
4. 1090. On the particular issue of discrimination, the Government points out that Circular No. 2002/5 dated 14 May 2002 was issued by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security. In particular, the circular places emphasis on the need to avoid discrimination between unions and to facilitate their activities. The Office of the Prime Minister issued another circular on the same subject – Circular No. 2002/17 dated 6 June 2002. Further, to avert the initiatives denounced by the complainants, the General Directorate of Labour sent letters dated 27 May 2002 and 1 July 2002, respectively, to the General Directorate of Land Office and to the General Directorate of State Railways in which it emphasized that public employees should not be forced to membership of a particular union or to resignation from particular unions. Finally, a communication from the General Directorate of Labour dated 9 July 2002 specified the rules concerning the establishment of institution administrative committees and was sent to the relevant public employers. Copies of the circulars, letters and communications are attached to the response.
   • Additional observations
5. 1091. In its communication of 13 January 2003, the Government reiterates that article 18 of Act No. 4688 prevents any act of discrimination against unions’ members or officers by reason of their trade union activities. The Government refers again to the circulars attached to its original reply and contends that Act No. 4688 clearly protects trade union rights of public employees. The Government underlines that the Office of the Prime Minister and the Ministry of Labour and Social Security follow closely its application. The Government also confirms that the Ministry of Transport has initiated an investigation on the allegations of discrimination concerning trade union members and officers working in the Mersin Harbour Operations and that the situation will be evaluated accordingly. Finally, the Government refers to the “Committee of Academics” composed of nine university professors and in which the Government, the employers and workers’ organizations are equally represented. The Committee is in charge of bringing the national legislation into harmony with European Union rules and ILO international labour standards. Upon the completion of this work, various problems encountered in the implementation of the legislation will be satisfactorily solved.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 1092. The Committee notes that the complaints relate to the recognition and the application in practice of the principles of freedom of association in the public service, in light of the entry into force of Act No. 4688 on public servants trade unions on 13 August 2001. The factual allegations raise in essence a general issue of discrimination against the complainants, on the one hand, and their members and officers on the other hand.
2. 1093. The Committee notes that the Confederation of Public Employees Trade Union (KESK) questions the conformity of some of the provisions of Act No. 4688 (see attached copy of the specific provisions) with the provisions of Conventions Nos. 87, 98 and 151. Further, KESK alleges a series of violations in practice of the provisions of these Conventions. These violations consist mainly of acts of anti-union discrimination discharged against the members and the officers of its constituent unions. The Committee notes that the Independent Public Works and Construction Employees’ Union (BAGIMSIZ YAPI-IMAR SEN) and the Independent Transport Union (Railways, Airports, Sea and Land Transport Services Public Employees) (BAGIMSIZ ULASIM-SEN) lodge allegations of a similar nature. KESK also alleges that the Office of Agricultural Products and Türk TELEKOM displayed favouritism towards certain unions to the detriment of its constituent unions.
3. 1094. Regarding the Government’s response and its additional observations, the Committee notes that it mainly tackles the legislative aspects of the complaints and that in particular it focuses on the compatibility of specific provisions of Act No. 4688 with Conventions Nos. 87, 98 and 151. The Committee notes that the Government does not address the allegations of a factual nature, although it refers to the investigation initiated by the Ministry of Transport on the allegations relating to the anti-union discrimination displayed by the management of the Mersin Port Operations. The Committee has taken note in this regard of the Government’s indications on the circulars issued to prevent acts of anti-union discrimination and on the letters sent to two administrations to avoid favouritism towards particular unions. The Committee also notes the communication concerning the rules governing the establishment of institution administrative committees and that a committee is in charge of harmonizing the national legislation in particular with ILO international labour standards.
4. 1095. In respect of the application in law of the principles of freedom of association, the Committee would like to make the following considerations. The Committee notes that the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has reviewed most of the provisions of Act No. 4688 in its comments on Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. The Committee notes in this respect that the comments made by the Committee of Experts related in particular to sections 3(a) and 15 excluding certain categories of public servants from the scope of the Act, to section 10 dealing with the implications of the trade union officer’s candidacy to local or general elections in its trade union functions, to section 28 concerning the scope of collective consultative talks. The Committee also notes that the Committee of Experts requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that those public servants who are not exercising authority in the name of the State and who may not be considered to be carrying out essential services in the strict sense of the term have the right to engage in industrial action. In referring the Government to these comments, the Committee believes that it is useful to underline the following principles of freedom of association.
5. 1096. First, all public service employees (with the sole possible exception of the armed forces and the police, as indicated in Article 9 of Convention No. 87), should, like workers in the private sector, be able to establish organizations of their own choosing to further and defend the interests of their members [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th (revised) edition, 1996, para. 206]. Second, concerning the particular case of managerial and supervisory staff, the Committee underlines that, they can be barred from the right to belong to the same trade unions as other workers, provided two conditions are met: first, that such workers have the right to form their own associations to defend their interests; and second, that the categories of such staff are not defined too broadly [see Digest, op. cit., para. 231]. To address the particular points made in this respect by the Government in relation to paragraph 2 of Article 1 of Convention No. 151, the Committee recalls that this Convention was intended to complement the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and that it does not in any way contradict or dilute the basic right of association guaranteed to all workers by virtue of Convention No. 87. In respect of the exercise of the right to strike in the public service, the Committee would like to underline that it may be restricted in the public service but only for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State and for those working in essential services in the strict sense of the term, i.e. services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population [see Digest, op. cit., para. 536].
6. 1097. As far as public servants’ collective bargaining rights are concerned, the Committee would like to draw the attention of the Government to the following principles: all public servants other than those engaged in the administration of the State should enjoy collective bargaining rights, and priority should be given to collective bargaining as the means to settle disputes arising in connection with the determination of terms and conditions of employment in the public service [see Digest, op. cit., para. 793]. This means that any aspect of the conditions of employment of public servants, other than those engaged in the administration of the State, can fall within the scope of collective bargaining.
7. 1098. In respect of the granting of certain privileges to the most representative unions, the Committee considers that this measure is not in itself contrary to the principles of freedom of association, provided in particular that the determination of the most representative organizations is based on objective, pre-established and precise criteria so as to avoid any possibility of bias or abuse [see Digest, op. cit., para. 310]. The Committee notes that, under section 30 of Act No. 4688, “… the Ministry of Labor and Social Security, taking into account the declaration of membership submitted to the ministry by the established public employees’ unions, shall determine the number of members by 31 May each year ...”; on the basis of this determination, the Ministry designates the unions and confederations with the largest membership in a given service sector. The Committee notes the request for clarification made by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to the Government on the role of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security in the determination of the number of members of a trade union, under section 14 of the Act. The Committee notes in this respect that section 30 does not contain any specification on the manner in which the membership of each union is determined by the Ministry either. The Committee is of the view, therefore, that the law does not contain sufficient guarantees to ensure a fully objective determination of the most representative unions.
8. 1099. In these circumstances, the Committee trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures so as to amend Act No. 4688 to fully reflect the principles of freedom of association mentioned above and it requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
9. 1100. Turning to the application in practice of the principles of freedom of association and firstly to the allegations of favouritism, the Committee wishes to recall that, by according favourable or unfavourable treatment to a given organization as compared with others, public authorities may be able to influence the choice of workers as to the organization they intend to join; in addition, public authorities which deliberately act in this manner violate the principle laid down in Convention No. 87 that they should refrain from any interference which would restrict the rights provided for in the Convention or impede their lawful exercise [see, for example, Digest, op. cit., paras. 304 and 306]. Concerning the particular allegations on the establishment of an Institution Administrative Committee in Türk TELEKOM with the participation of Türk Haber-Sen and the distribution by the Office of Agricultural Products of membership forms in favour of Türk Tarim-Orman Sen union, the Committee requests the Government to examine the matter and to take the necessary steps in order to ensure that all the unions are treated on an equal footing and that the workers concerned may freely chose the union they wish to join. The Committee notes that the allegation relating to the distribution of membership forms by the Office of Agricultural Products also raises the question of the discrimination of workers who have decided not to join Türk Tarim-Orman Sen union or to resign from it. The Committee trusts therefore that the Government will also examine this aspect of the issue and that it will take the necessary steps in the light of the principles recalled hereafter by the Committee. The Committee requests the Government to answer to the allegations, in particular by describing any measures taken in this respect.
10. 1101. Regarding acts of anti-union discrimination alleged by the complainants, the Committee considers that the following principles should be emphasized: firstly, in general, no person shall be prejudiced in his employment by reason of his trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities [see Digest, op. cit., para. 690]; secondly, protection against acts of anti-union discrimination should cover not only hiring and dismissal, but also any discriminatory measures during employment, in particular, transfers, downgrading and other acts that are prejudicial to the workers [see Digest, op. cit., para. 695]; thirdly, the Committee recalls that protection against acts of anti-union discrimination are particularly desirable in the case of trade union officials to enable them to perform their trade union duties in full independence; fourthly, legislation should lay down explicitly remedies and penalties against acts of anti-union discrimination; in this respect, the Committee refers the Government to the comments made by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations on section 18 of Act No. 4688; and finally, the Committee would like to point out the Government’s responsibility for preventing all acts of anti-union discrimination and ensuring that workers subject to such treatment have access to means of redress which are expeditious, inexpensive and fully impartial [see Digest, op. cit., for example, paras. 738 and 741].
11. 1102. While taking due note of the circulars attached to the Government’s response, the Committee is of the view that the effective protection against acts of anti-union discrimination should first and foremost be guaranteed in the law. The Committee trusts therefore that the Government will take the necessary legislative measures to ensure effective protection of public servants fully taking into account the abovementioned principles. Concerning the particular allegations made by the complainants, as a general comment, the Committee notes that the alleged cases of discrimination are not isolated cases.
12. 1103. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to promptly institute independent inquiries in the following individual cases, in order to establish whether the workers concerned have been adversely affected in their employment by reason of their legitimate trade union activities and, if so, to take suitable measures to remedy without delay any effects of anti-union discrimination:
    • (a) the 107 cases concerning members, officers of the Health Workers’ Union (SES) and workers participating in its activities;
    • (b) the 30 cases concerning members and officers of EGITIM-SEN;
    • (c) the 13 cases of workers mentioned in the third list submitted by KESK in its complaint.
      • The Committee requests the Government to answer the allegations made in all these individual cases, in particular by indicating any developments relating to the corresponding investigations.
    • 1104. Regarding the allegations concerning the three employees of the Mersin Port Operations – i.e. Mr. Nazmi Vura (chief of terminal services), Mr. Mehmet Yildiz (head tally-clerk) and Mr. Okan Nar (specialist) – the Committee notes that the Ministry of Transport has initiated an investigation. The Committee trusts that this investigation will address also the additional allegations submitted by the Independent Transport Union (Railways, Airports, Sea and Land Transport Services Public Employees) (BAGIMSIZ ULASIM-SEN), that it will be promptly carried out, and that, in case of anti-union discrimination, the proper remedies will be decided. The Committee requests the Government to answer the allegations relating to these three cases, in particular by indicating the results of the investigation as well as any subsequent measures taken.

Z. ANNEX

• Appendix 1
• Provisions of Act No. 4688 mentioned in the complaint
• Definitions
• Article 3 – In the application of this Law;
  • (a) Public employee: The public employees who are permanently employed and who have finished candidacy or trial periods in a status other than the worker in public institutions and organizations.
  • (b) Public employer: Public institutions and organizations that have or do not have a legal entity where public employees work.
  • (c) Public employer representative: Those who are authorized to represent and to run and administer the whole of public institutions and organizations and their assistants.
  • (d) Workplace: The places where the public services are run.
  • (e) Institution: Institutions which constitute an administrative whole considering the service type and its administration, and whose authorities and responsibilities are determined according to the establishing laws or the directives about their foundation.
  • (f) Union: The organization that has a legal entity that the public employees have established to protect and develop the common economic, social and occupational rights and interests of public employees.
  • (g) Confederation: The upper organizations that at least five unions in different sectors established according to this Law came together to found, and which has a legal entity.
  • (h) Collective talk: The talks between the Public Employers’ Committee and the authorized public employees unions and their supreme institutions on the issues of coefficients and indicators and the salaries and fees, all types of increases and indemnities, overtime pay, journey provisions, bonus, residence allowances, death, birth and family allowances, treatment assistance and funeral expenses and food and clothes assistance and other such support.
  • (i) Arbitration committee: The committee to be established in order to resolve the disagreements arising during the collective talks.
  • (j) Agreement text: The text showing the agreement reached after the collective talk.
  • (k) Supreme arbitration committee president: The president of the Committee established according to the 53rd article of No. 2822 Collective Agreement, Strike and Lock-out Law.
• The public employer representatives, according to this Law, are considered public employers and the connected units according to the service type and administration are considered the workplace. Where the public employer has more than one workplace all the workplaces are for this law considered as included in the workplace.
• Those who cannot be union members
• Article 15 – The below cannot be members to the unions established under this law:
  • (a) The public employees employed in the General Secretariat of Turkish Grand National Assembly, General Secretariat of the President and the General Secretariat of the National Security Council,
  • (b) The presidents and members of the supreme courts, judges, attorneys and the others considered in this profession,
  • (c) The undersecretaries of the institutions covered under this law, the presidents, general directors, heads of the departments and their assistants, the executive board members, the directors and presidents of the boards of control units of the central organizations, legal advisers, the highest rank officials of the regional, provincial or district organizations or the public employees of the same or higher rank, highest authority in the workplaces where more than 100 public employees are employed and their assistants, majors and their assistants,
  • (d) Presidents and members of Higher Education Committee and presidents and members of the Higher Education Control Committee, the presidents of universities and technology institutions, the deans of the university faculties and directors of higher schools and institutes and their assistants,
  • (e) Highest rank civil administrative officials,
  • (f) Members of the army forces,
  • (g) Public employees and civilian civil servants working at the Ministry of National Defence and the Turkish Armed Forces (including the Gendarme Commandership and Coasts Security Commandership),
  • (h) Members of the National Intelligence Service.
  • (i) Central control personal or the institutions covered in this law,
  • (j) Members of the security services and other personal in the security organization and special security personnel in the public institutions,
  • (k) Public employees in the penalty institutions,
• cannot be members of unions and cannot found unions.
• Collective consultative talk
• Part One: General provisions
• The scope of collective consultative talk
• Article 28 – The collective consultative talk covers the coefficients and indicators, salaries and payments, all types of pay rises and compensation payments, overtime, travel, accommodation payments, birth, death and family payments, treatment assistance, funeral expenses, food and clothing allowances and the similar and other aids for increasing the productivity for public employees.
• Part Two: Collective consultative talks,
• authority and agreed text
• Authority
• Article 30 – The union having the greatest number of public employees in a given service sector and the confederation they are affiliated to are authorized for collective consultative talks. The president of the confederation that has the most affiliation is the head of the collective consultative talk board.
• The Ministry of Labour and Social Security, taking into account of the declarations of membership submitted to the ministry by the established public employees unions, shall determine the number of members by 31 May of each year upon which it shall determine the authorized public employees’ union in each serve sector and the confederation that has the most affiliation. The results of this procedure shall be published in the Official Newspaper within the first week of July. Number of members, the authorized unions and the confederation that has the most affiliation shall be definite unless the results are challenged within a period of five working days.