Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2019, publiée 109ème session CIT (2021)

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

Autre commentaire sur C087

Observation

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers, to establish and join organizations. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that section 7(d) of the Act on Public Servants’ Trade Unions and Collective Agreement (Act No. 4688), as amended in 2012, requires that trade union statutes provide the place of residence of the founders of an organization to the office of the Governor of the province in order to be incorporated. While noting the Government’s indication that incomplete information does not affect the establishment of the union or the acquisition of legal personality, the Committee urged the Government to provide information on the manner in which this provision is applied and whether this has given rise to any claims or complaints with respect to delays, difficulties in registration, or harassment, and what, if any, steps the Government has taken in this regard. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that trade unions and their confederations do not require prior authorization to be established and acquire legal personality as soon as their statutes are deposited with the Governor. Any missing documents or non-compliance with the laws can be completed or remedied during the period of one month. If not completed or remedied, the Governor applies within one month to the competent court, which grants another two months to the trade union concerned. According to the information obtained from the Government, no difficulties or delays during the registration of trade unions were observed and no complaint or allegation of harassment has been reported. The Committee takes note of this information.

Article 3. Right of workers’ organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom and to organize their activities. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that the last paragraph of section 10 of Act No. 4688 provides that in the case of non-respect of legal requirements concerning trade union meetings and decisions of general assemblies, the union executives are removed from office by decision of the labour court upon the application made by one of the members or by the Ministry of Labour. It had requested the Government to review this provision in consultation with the social partners and to provide detailed information on any applications for removal from office filed by government officials against union executives. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that this provision is aimed at ensuring democratic functioning of a trade union. Recalling that any removal or suspension of trade union officers which is not the result of an internal decision of the trade union, a vote by the members, or normal judicial proceedings, seriously interferes in the exercise of the trade union office, the Committee reiterates its previous request and asks the Government to provide information on all measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

Right to strike. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide its comments on the observations of the Confederation of Turkish Trade Unions (TÜRK-İŞ), which the Government sent with its 2015 report, alleging that the preconditions for lawful industrial action, meetings and demonstrations and announcements to the press were constantly being made more stringent and efforts were made to change standard meeting places and itineraries.

The Committee had previously noted that whereas on the one hand, the seventh paragraph of article 54 of the Constitution (prohibiting politically motivated strikes and lockouts, solidarity strikes and lockouts, occupation of work premises, go-slows and other forms of obstruction) had been repealed, on the other hand, section 58 of the Act on Trade Unions and Collective Labour Agreements (Act No. 6356) restricted lawful strikes to disputes during collective bargaining negotiations. The Committee had requested the Government to indicate the manner in which protest action, sympathy strikes and other means of legitimate industrial action were protected. Regretting that the Government provides no particulars on this matter, the Committee reiterates its request, and urges the Government to provide information in this regard.

Determination of minimum service. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that section 65 of Act No. 6356 granted the authority of determining a minimum service in the event of industrial action unilaterally to the employer and had requested the Government to review this provision with a view to ensure that workers’ organizations were able to participate in the determination of a required minimum service at the workplace, and that failing agreement the matter may be referred to an independent body that has the confidence of the parties. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there is no legislative provision forbidding or impeding the consultations and prior agreement between the employer and workers’ representatives on the required minimum service before the announcement is made by the employer. The competent trade union has the right to challenge the employer’s decision before the courts. The Government refers to the need to ensure the continuity of work in processes, which have to be maintained for technical reasons, as well as for the reasons of safety, damage prevention and protection of flora and fauna. The Government considers that involving labour unions in this process is tantamount to interfering with the management rights of the employer, which also causes financial and economic responsibility. The Committee once again recalls that workers’ organizations should be able to participate in defining minimum services in the same way as employers and that in order to promote the participation of the union in the determination of such a service in the event of industrial action, it would be important for the Government to clearly provide for such participation in the law, rather than granting this authority unilaterally to the employer. The Committee once again requests the Government to review this provision with a view to ensuring that workers’ organizations are able to participate in the determination of a required minimum service at the workplace, and that failing agreement the matter may be referred to an independent body that has the confidence of the parties. It requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

Public sector. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that public servants in the broad sense of the term were prohibited from taking industrial action, and that the Public Employees Act No. 657 and Act No. 6111 provide disciplinary sanctions for such action. The Committee had noted that according to the Confederation of Public Employees Trade Unions (KESK), the ban on industrial action in the public sector covered a very broad class of workers, whose number amounted to three million. The Committee had requested the Government to review the legislation concerning public service workers with the relevant social partners with a view to its amendment, so as to ensure that the ban on industrial action is limited to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State and those working in essential services. Noting with regret that no information has been provided by the Government, the Committee reiterates its previous request and requests that the Government provide information an all measures taken or envisaged in this respect.