Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 295, Novembre 1994

1. 333. The complaint in this case was submitted in a communication dated 14 December 1993 from the International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations (IFALPA). The Government sent its observations in a communication of 6 July 1994.
2. 334. Turkey has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 335. In its communication dated 14 December 1993 the International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations (IFALPA) states that after protracted and inconclusive negotiations between the Turkish Airlines company and the Turkish Aviation Workers Union (Hava-Is) the union was not very receptive to the company's proposal to reduce working time in order to compensate for the insufficient salary increase offered which was below the inflation rate in Turkey. Hava-Is therefore decided to conduct a membership ballot in order to determine whether a strike had sufficient support and in order to press for its claims. The complainant federation states that the ballot resulted in a narrow defeat of the strike call. It adds that in accordance with the rules in force, the vote count was conducted in the presence of a number of representatives of the pilots and cabin attendants, board members and senior administrators of Turkish Airlines, and government inspectors, all of whom acted as observers of the voting procedure.
2. 336. The complainant federation alleges that shortly after the vote count, some pilots and cabin attendants present during the ballot count were dismissed (two pilots who are leaders in the Turkish Air Line Pilots Association (TALPA), five cabin attendants who are members of the Cabin Attendants Association, including the president of the association, another cabin attendant, and two dispatchers) or grounded (four pilots and three cabin attendants, all of whom are trade union leaders of Hava-Is). The trade union federation explains that since the dismissed pilots who were members of the Turkish Air Lines Pilots Association (TALPA) did not hold any position within the Hava-Is trade union - notwithstanding the fact that they were spokesmen for the TALPA association - they were dismissed in accordance with Turkish legislation which permits dismissal if there is payment of prescribed compensation. In the case of the other four pilots who are trade union leaders of Hava-Is, dismissal was more difficult for the company. They have therefore been denied promotions and the company has ordered its flight scheduling department to remove their names from the roster, without advising the pilots of this decision and without explaining the reason for it. The complainant federation adds that in none of the six cases of pilots prejudiced in this way has a formal letter been sent informing them of the decisions taken and the reasons why they have been made.
3. 337. Finally, the complainant federation states that a member of the company's management indicated that he had lost confidence in the six pilots in question, as a result of which it was impossible for them to continue in any operational capacity, and that the pilot who is president of the TALPA was dismissed for addressing excessive and disrespectful language to the president of the company. Indeed, this member of the management referred specifically to a public challenge by the TALPA to the company's management to engage in an open debate on what the association considers to be operational malpractices in justifying his lack of confidence. The complainant organization thus considers that the six members of the TALPA have been prejudiced for having the courage to speak out against various operational and employment practices of the company.

B. The Government's reply

1. 338. In its communication of 6 July 1994 the Government explains that the Turkish Airlines company is an autonomous public establishment and that the Government is not competent to interfere directly in its administrative procedures concerning the employment of its personnel. The Government states that according to the information it requested from the company: (1) there was no pressure exerted by management against the personnel carrying out trade union activities and these activities were conducted freely and within the established legal framework; (2) the disciplinary proceedings mentioned by the complainant federation and conducted by the company cannot be considered as pressure tactics against the personnel carrying out trade union activities but rather as the legal exercise of the rights of the company; (3) the contracts of the pilots, cabin attendants and former president of the Turkish Air Lines Pilots Association (TALPA) were terminated because of the insults made against and their improper behaviour towards the company's Board and its members.
2. 339. The Government states that two of the pilots whose employment contracts were terminated received compensation in accordance with the law, and that furthermore the employment contracts of five cabin attendants were terminated with proper notice. These five workers appealed against their dismissal in the courts, and the cases are still pending. The Government further reports that four other pilots who held posts as representatives of the trade union lost the confidence of the company because they did not intervene when the insults were being made against the company's Board members and its president. The Government specifies that these pilots have not been dismissed, but that the Board of Directors decided to prohibit them from flying, as was its right in the light of this loss of confidence. None the less, they are still being paid compensation for seniority and flight compensation and have thus not been subjected to any major material losses. Finally, the Government states that Turkish legislation contains the necessary legal protection against anti-union discrimination and that the pilots and cabin attendants who have been prejudiced may bring their cases before a court to defend their rights, as some have already done.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 340. The Committee observes that the allegations in this case refer to certain measures which were taken by the Turkish Airlines company and which are prejudicial to trade union leaders and activists as well as workers, following the conducting of a membership ballot of the Turkish Aviation Workers Union (Hava-Is) to decide whether to hold a strike. Specifically, the complainant federation alleges that seven trade union leaders (two pilots and five cabin attendants) and three workers (one cabin attendant and two dispatchers) were dismissed and that four pilots and three cabin attendants who are trade union leaders were grounded.
2. 341. The Committee notes the Government's observations according to which: (1) there was no pressure exerted by the company's management against the personnel carrying out trade union activities freely and within the framework of the law; (2) the disciplinary proceedings mentioned by the complainant federation and conducted by the company cannot be considered as pressure tactics against the personnel carrying out trade union activities but rather as the legal exercise of the rights of the company; (3) the contracts of the pilots, cabin attendants and former president of the Turkish Air Lines Pilots Association (TALPA) were terminated because of the insults these workers made against and their improper behaviour towards the company's Board and its members; (4) the two pilots whose employment contracts were terminated received compensation in accordance with the law; (5) the employment contracts of five cabin attendants were terminated with proper notice. These workers later filed complaints in court, and the cases are still pending; and (6) the company's Board decided to ground four pilots who were trade union leaders because it lost confidence in them, but they are still receiving compensation for seniority and flight compensation.
3. 342. The Committee observes that the dismissals in this case took place as part of a dispute between the Turkish Aviation Workers Union (Hava-Is) and the Turkish Airlines company, and more specifically after a membership ballot was conducted to decide whether to hold a strike. Furthermore, the Committee observes that the Government states that the pilots and cabin attendants were dismissed because of the insults they made against and their improper behaviour towards the company's Board and its members. The Committee is not in a position, based on the general elements supplied by the Government, to judge the gravity of the terms used by the trade union leaders and trade unionists who were dismissed or of their behaviour during the collective dispute. The Committee would like to recall that "with regard to the reasons for dismissal, the activities of trade union officials should be considered in the context of particular situations which may be especially strained and difficult in cases of labour disputes and strike action" (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 3rd edition, 1985, para. 561).
4. 343. In these circumstances, as there are clear indications of the anti-union nature of the dismissals since they took place following a membership ballot to call a strike and the dismissed workers were present during the vote count, the Committee draws the Government's attention to the fact that no one should be penalized for carrying out or attempting to carry out a legitimate strike. The Committee requests the Government to take the measures necessary to encourage the parties to come to an agreement so that all the trade union leaders and activists as well as the workers who were dismissed in this case can be reinstated in their posts. Furthermore, the Committee trusts that the judicial authorities will take into account the principle mentioned in the above paragraph when considering the appeals made by some of the dismissed workers, and requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of these proceedings.
5. 344. Furthermore, as regards the company's decision to ground four pilots and three cabin attendants (all of whom are trade union leaders of Hava-Is) due to its loss of confidence in these workers and that it was therefore impossible for them to continue working in any operational capacity, the Committee can only consider that this decision - like the decision to dismiss the other trade union leaders and trade unionists - appears to have been taken as a consequence of the trade union activities of the workers in question, and more specifically of the conducting of a membership ballot to hold a strike. In these circumstances, the Committee once again recalls to the Government that "no person should be dismissed or prejudiced in his employment by reason of his trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities, and ... (it is important to forbid and penalize) in practice all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of employment (see 270th Report, Case No. 1640 (Uruguay), para. 63 and 272nd Report, Case No. 1506 (El Salvador), para. 132). The Committee requests the Government to make efforts to bring the parties to the dispute together and to ensure that these workers can once again carry out flights if they so desire.
6. 345. Finally, the Committee observes that the Government does not refer in its observations to the alleged dismissals of three workers (one cabin attendant and two dispatchers) nor to the grounding of the three cabin attendants (trade unionists and members of the Hava-Is) who participated in the vote count. Noting that these workers have been prejudiced in the same circumstances as the above-mentioned workers, the Committee considers that its conclusions apply fully to these other cases and requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.