Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 378, Juin 2016

1. 809. The Committee last examined this case at its June 2015 meeting, when it presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 375th Report, paras 532–559, approved by the Governing Body at its 324th Session].
2. 810. The Government sent new observations in a communication dated 2 July 2015.
3. 811. Turkey has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 812. In its previous examination of the case in June 2015, the Committee made the following recommendations [see 375th Report, para. 559]:
   • (a) The Committee requests the Government and the complainants to provide information on the appeal regarding the 20 November 2012 decision of the High Criminal Court and to indicate whether, given the period of their sentences, the trade unionists in question are now free.
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the current status of the TÜMTIS dissolution cases.
   • (c) The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the alleged prosecution of TÜMTIS National President Kenan Ozturk and Ankara Branch President Nurettin Kilicdogan for allegedly criticizing the new labour law and holding an illegal demonstration.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 813. In its communication dated 2 July 2015, the Government reiterates the information it has previously provided as regards the 2012 legislative amendments which, according to the Government, gave trade unions more freedoms and rights and ensured better protection, including against dissolution, of trade unions, and replaced imprisonment sanctions by administrative fines.
2. 814. With regard to the Turkish Motor Workers’ Union (TÜMTIS) dissolution case, the Government indicates that Case 2008/414 filed in the 5th Labour Court of Istanbul by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor was unsuccessful because it was based on legislation which the Ministry no longer had the jurisdiction to implement as Act No. 2821 was repealed. The Government indicates that TÜMTIS is currently operating in the transport sector, and regroups a total of 7,518 members. It has signed 85 collective agreements which benefit 3,250 workers. In 2014, TÜMTIS concluded four new collective agreements regulating working conditions of 84 workers, three more agreements were concluded before 3 May 2015 for the benefit of 171 workers.
3. 815. The Government argues that the case against the TÜMTIS administrators and members was filed in 2007, before Acts Nos 2821 and 2822 were repealed. The verdict of the 11th Ankara High Criminal Court sentencing 14 administrators and members of the Ankara branch of TÜMTIS to imprisonment concerned unlawful trade union activities and therefore the relevant labour legislation in force at that time was rightfully implemented. The Government further argues that this is a criminal case, which does not concern the exercise of legitimate trade union activities and is thus beyond the mandate of the Committee on Freedom of Association.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 816. The Committee recalls that this case concerns the allegations of illegal arrests, detentions and prosecution of several trade union leaders for engaging in trade union activities and abusive use of criminal law after TÜMTIS had conducted an organization campaign at Horoz Cargo.
2. 817. The Committee recalls that by a decision of 20 November 2012 of the 11th High Criminal Court, 14 trade unionists were sentenced to prison terms varying from six months to two years. This decision was appealed by the union. Given the period of their sentences, and in the absence of any information to the contrary from the Government and the complainant, the Committee understands that the trade unionists are now free. Furthermore noting that neither the Government nor the complainants provided any information on the outcome of the appeal, the Committee will not pursue its examination of this matter.
3. 818. The Committee further recalls from its previous examination of the case [see 375th Report, para. 558] the allegation that the Public Prosecutor of Istanbul had filed a suit in the 5th Labour Court of Istanbul to dissolve TÜMTIS pursuant to section 58 entitled “Dissolution” of Trade Union Act No. 2821 on the grounds of “establishing a criminal syndicate for the purpose of generating economic profit through trade union”, which, on the one hand, the Government appeared to have confirmed, but at the same time pointed out that this legislation had since become obsolete following the adoption of Trade Unions and Collective Labour Agreements Act No. 6356 on 18 October 2012. The Government further pointed out that if a trade union official commits a crime, only his or her individual responsibility is engaged while the trade union in question is protected against dissolution. Taking into account this legislative change, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the current status of the TÜMTIS dissolution cases. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the dissolution case was unsuccessful due to the fact that it was based on legislation which the Ministry no longer had the jurisdiction to implement since Act No. 2821 was repealed. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that TÜMTIS is currently operating in the transport sector, and represents a total of 7,518 members and has concluded a number of collective agreements.
4. 819. Finally, the Committee recalls the complainants’ allegation that in 2013, a case was opened by the National Prosecutor against TÜMTIS National President Kenan Ozturk and Ankara Branch President Nurettin Kilicdogan for criticizing the country’s new labour law and allegedly holding an illegal demonstration. In the absence of any information from the Government and the complainants, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether any such charges were initiated against the two presidents and, if so, to provide detailed information in this regard.