Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2014, Publicación: 104ª reunión CIT (2015)

Convenio sobre la libertad sindical y la protección del derecho de sindicación, 1948 (núm. 87) - Türkiye (Ratificación : 1993)

Otros comentarios sobre C087

Observación

Solicitud directa

Visualizar en: Francés - EspañolVisualizar todo

Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that its previous observation concerned the following provisions of Act No. 6289 on public servants’ unions and collective agreement, amending Act No. 4688, section 7(d) which 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; and section 10(8) which provides for the removal of union executive bodies in case of non-respect of requirements concerning meetings and decisions of general assemblies set out in the law upon application that can be made by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security.

As regards the obligation to provide the address of trade union founding members, the Committee notes the observations made by Turkish Confederation of Employer Associations (TİSK) that this is a procedural transaction. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which this section is applied and whether this has given rise to any claims or complaints with respect to delays, difficulties in registration or harassment, and the Government’s responses thereto.

As regards the removal of union executive bodies in case of non-respect of requirements concerning meetings and decisions of general assemblies upon application that can be made by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, the Committee notes the observations made by TİSK that such a decision is to be taken by a court and not the administrative authority. The Committee considers that workers’ organizations should be free to determine the processes for removal of trade union officers in their by-laws and requests the Government to review this provision in consultation with the social partners with a view to its amendment and to provide information on its application in practice.

The Committee takes due note of the comments made by the Government in relation to the concerns raised by the Municipality and Private Government Employees’ Trade Union (BEM-BIR-SEN) that the Act did not provide for agency shop payments and recalls that the Travaux Préparatoire to Article 2 of the Convention make it clear that the regulation of these matters is left to each State according to its practices and rules (see General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, 2012, paragraph 99).

Article 3. The Committee notes the concerns raised by the Confederation of Progressive Trade Unions of Turkey (DİSK) and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) that section 9 of Act No. 6356 on Trade Unions and Collective Labour Agreements limits the number of board members for branch trade unions to five, reduced from nine in the previous law. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that this limitation is aimed at preventing abuse in terms of trade union guarantee and was agreed upon by social partners in the Trilateral Consultation Board meeting. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether this restriction only affects the number of board members that may benefit from a trade union guarantee and whether workers otherwise have no limits to the number of trade union board members they consider necessary when adopting their by-laws.

The Committee observes that section 58 of Act No. 6356 restricts lawful strike to disputes during collective bargaining negotiations and requests the Government to indicate the manner in which protest action, sympathy strikes and other means of legitimate industrial action are protected (see General Survey, op. cit., 2012, paragraphs 124–126) in line with the 2010 constitutional amendment.

The Committee notes that section 65 of the Act sets out the conditions for the establishment of a minimum service at the workplace to be determined unilaterally by the employer. The Committee further notes that this decision may be appealed to the courts for a final determination. The Committee recalls in this respect that workers’ organizations should be able to participate in the determination of a required minimum service at the workplace and failing agreement, the matter should be determined by an independent body with the confidence of the parties concerned (see General Survey, op cit, 2012 paragraphs 137–138). The Committee requests the Government to take steps to review this provision in consultation with the social partners with a view to its amendment and to provide information on any developments in this regard.