Definitive Report - Report No 111, 1969

Case No 543 (Türkiye) - Complaint date: 10-DEC-67 - Closed

:

1. 21. The complaint of the Social Insurance Workers' Union (Ankara) is contained in a communication dated 10 December 1967, supplemented by a communication dated 10 January 1968. The complaint and the additional information supporting it were transmitted to the Government, which presented its observations thereon in two communications dated 16 February and 12 March 1968, respectively.
2. 22. Turkey has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but it has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 23. The complainants alleged that the Directorate-General of the Turkish Social Insurance Department, a public service set up by virtue of Act No. 4792, had taken measures discriminating against certain officers and active members of the union. These measures had allegedly been directed in particular against the workers who had taken an active part in a strike declared in 1967.
2. 24. Thus, the complainants alleged, one worker had been prematurely retired and thirteen others, whose names and functions in the union were stated and who, according to the complainants, were the most active members of the union, had been transferred to other districts.
3. 25. After these transfers, the complainants stated, " the Istanbul section of our union has had to shut its doors, our headquarters and our inspection services and administration have been paralysed and our Trabzon section has been deprived of its President ".
4. 26. The complainants alleged secondarily, and without mentioning specific cases, that the employer discriminated between members and non-members of the union and in particular withheld normal promotion from members.
5. 27. It was the view of the complainants that all these measures were contrary to sections 19, 20, 21 and 31 of Act No. 274, which governs trade union matters in Turkey, and to the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), which has been ratified by Turkey.
6. 28. Lastly, the complainants stated that they had appealed to the competent authorities in Turkey, but added that the decision of these authorities had not yet reached them.
7. 29. In its observations, the Government declared, first, that no one had been denied promotion (see paragraph 26 above) on account of his trade union activities. With regard to the substance of the complainants' allegations, the Government stated that, contrary to these allegations, the appointments made by the Directorate-General of the Social Insurance Department constituted an administrative act in accordance with section 5 of Act No. 7242 and were intended to strengthen its various regional offices with better-qualified staff. The Government stated that neither the collective agreement signed between the trade union and the Directorate-General nor Act No. 274 respecting trade unions contained any provision prohibiting the transfer of union members from one office to another.
8. 30. With regard to the worker alleged to have been prematurely retired, the Government stated that when his work in the Directorate-General had terminated he had already retired and that he was not therefore subject to the provisions of sections 39, 40 and 47 of Act No. 5434 dealing with the retirement fund.
9. 31. In a directorate-general employing 17,000 persons, where there are 500 annual transfers, the Government concluded, " it need hardly be said that the transfer to other offices of the eleven workers in question and the retirement of the above-mentioned person, out of the 5,000 members of the union, represent figures well below the usual numbers ".
10. 32. When the case came before it at its session in May 1968, the Committee, having observed that, according to the complainants, the workers who have been transferred were particularly active members of the union and that their transfer had resulted in the disorganisation of several sections and departments of the union, had recalled the importance that should be attached to the principle contained in Article 1 of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), which has been ratified by Turkey, according to which workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of antiunion discrimination in respect of their employment, such protection having to apply more particularly in respect of acts calculated to cause the dismissal of or otherwise prejudice a worker by reason of union membership or because of participation in union activities.
11. 33. Also observing, however, that the complainants appeared to have appealed against the action taken in respect of the workers mentioned in the complaint (see paragraph 28 above), the Committee, in accordance with its constant practice, had considered that it should, before making its definitive recommendations to the Governing Body, ascertain whether an appeal had in fact been made at the national level and, if so, await the results of this appeal.
12. 34. The Committee had therefore requested the Director-General to ask the Government to be good enough to inform it whether the complainant organisation had appealed to a national authority against the decisions complained of and, if so, to state the findings of this appeal and the grounds on which they were based.
13. 35. By a letter dated 3 June 1968, this request for further information was brought to the attention of the Government, which replied by two communications dated 20 January and 7 February 1969, respectively.
14. 36. It appears from this reply that the complainant union did in fact begin an action before the Court of Ankara against the members of the Board of Directors of the Turkish Social Insurance Department, claiming that the members of the Board, in the exercise of their functions during the months of October and November 1967, had exceeded their authority.
15. 37. The Government states that the Ankara examining magistrate, who opened the investigation on the union's request for a prosecution to be brought, decided, in a judgment of 19 September 1968-the full text of which is supplied by the Government-to dismiss the case against the members of the Board of Directors of the Turkish Social Insurance Department.
16. 38. It appears from the judgment that, in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 4792, the Social Security Institution is a public corporate body; that the members of the Board of Directors against whom the action was brought have the right, under the Act mentioned above, to appoint social security staff; that there is no indication or evidence justifying a conclusion that the members of the Board, when transferring certain members of the union to various regional offices, acted with any aim other than that of strengthening the offices in question.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 39. In these circumstances, having taken note of the detailed explanations furnished by the Government, the Committee considers that the complainants have not adduced evidence that there was, in this instance, any anti-union discrimination, and recommends the Governing Body to decide that this case calls for no further examination.