Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2002, publiée 91ème session CIT (2003)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report and the attached documentation, which includes the observations of the Turkish Confederation of Employers’ Associations (TISK) and the Confederation of Trade Unions of Turkey (TÜRK-IŞ), as well as the Government’s replies to these observations. The Committee also notes the observation communicated by the Confederation of Progressive Trade Unions (DISK) and the absence of any government reply thereto.

The Committee notes that most of the points raised by the TISK and the TÜRK-IŞ were examined in its observations of 1998 and 1999. The problems were brought up by these organizations in previous comments concerning the application of those provisions of the Convention that relate to the scope of the national labour inspection system, collaboration between labour inspection officials, employers and workers or their organizations, the number of labour inspectorates and inspection visits, and the publication of the annual inspection report.

The observation of the DISK concerns the need to ensure that the number of labour inspectors meets the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention, as well as ensuring that they have sufficient funding and suitable working conditions so as to enable them to meet the objectives of the Convention. The DISK considers furthermore that labour inspectors must enjoy the independence which they need to do their work without being subjected to pressure, and that they should have trade union rights, in particular the right to form associations. Noting that the Government has not replied to the points raised by this organization, the Committee would be grateful to receive its views in this regard.

1. Scope of the national system of labour inspection (Article 2 of the Convention). In reply to observations on the problem of informal work, the Government acknowledges that this is one of the main problems of the Turkish economy and states that the methods used in inspection visits have been designed to ensure that labour inspection also covers informal sector enterprises. The Committee notes with interest that, in addition to the scheduled visits to establishments that are regularly registered on a list, non-scheduled visits are made in particular regions covering all establishments located in those regions, and no distinction is made between registered undertakings and those in the informal sector. According to the Government, this method, which makes it possible to monitor informal work, is used frequently, the emphasis being on education and training for all parties involved, while sanctions are used only as a last resort. The Government explains that labour inspectors are also free to carry out other types of inspection visit, without prior authorization, in order to follow up complaints or for any other pertinent reason. Measures cited by the Government in connection with the development of supervision activities in the informal sector include the publication of a guide to labour inspection by geographical region and by sector. The Government considers that regional inspections should help to eradicate the chronic problems of clandestine work, child labour and occupational hazards. Similarly, according to the Government, it should be possible to resolve labour relations problems quickly and comprehensively. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the impact of regional inspections and the observance of legislation on conditions of work and protection of workers at work, especially in the informal sector.

2. Arrangements to promote collaboration between the labour inspection services, employers and workers (Article 5, paragraph (b)). According to the Government, even though such collaboration is not institutionalized, there are no obstacles to it in practice and inspectors are encouraged to consult workers or their representatives during inspection visits and the International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) project implementation. The Government also states that the meetings organized by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security with the Labour Inspection Board, constitute a forum for collaboration with the social partners. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the questions on which there is collaboration between the labour inspection authority and the social partners during these meetings and on the results of such collaboration.

3. Combating child labour. With reference to its observation in 2000, the Committee notes once again with interest the development of activities under the IPEC aimed at bringing about the progressive elimination of child labour, with the participation of the social partners, universities and non-governmental organizations. The Committee notes in particular the training activities for labour inspectors in this area, the cooperation agreements concluded by the Labour Inspection Board with the social services and the child protection authority, the authorities responsible for primary education, and the traders’ and craftsmen’s association and the measures taken to enable the families concerned to send their children aged below 15 years to school. The TISK has expressed its satisfaction at the activities carried out jointly by the Government, the employers and representatives of civil society as part of the IPEC project, and at the Government’s commitment, under the five-year plan and the National Programme to implement European Union standards, to develop legislation on child labour with a view to prevention. The TISK also welcomes its involvement in the activities of the Child Labour Unit set up within the Ministry of Labour and Social Security and tasked with coordination of child labour programmes. According to the TISK, training activities for labour inspectors in the area of child labour are of great benefit for an approach to labour inspection that is preventive, rather than exclusively punitive.

As regards the question of child labour in the informal sector, the Government confirms that the phenomenon is growing, especially in commercial or crafts enterprises employing fewer workers than the threshold number defined for enterprises to be covered by labour legislation. Noting the Government’s data showing that, during 1994, visits carried out under the IPEC programme led to the registration of 257 previously non-declared enterprises, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to communicate information on developments with regard to labour inspection activities in informal sector enterprises that employ child labour and on the results of such activities.

4. Shortage of labour inspectors (Articles 10 and 14). The Government reports that the Prime Minister has approved a plan to recruit 100 assistant labour inspectors. The Committee notes, however, that no indication is given as to whether this has been followed up. Furthermore, the total number of labour inspectors in service, as indicated in the Government’s report, suggests a significant reduction by comparison with the figures given previously, and the same can be said with regard to inspections. The Committee trusts that in its next report the Government will be able to report on measures to reinforce the number of labour inspectors with a view to attaining the stated objectives.

5. Publication of an annual inspection report (Article 20). Referring to the observation of the TÜRK-IŞ to the effect that the annual inspection report is not published in a manner that allows any reliable assessment of inspections, and noting that it is not clear from the Government’s reply to the observation whether a report of this kind is actually published and made available to the social partners and any other interested party, the Committee requests the Government to provide clarification on this point by specifying the mode of publication and by detailing how the report is disseminated.