Definitive Report - Report No 412, November 2025

Case No 3490 (Türkiye) - Complaint date: 08-JAN-25 - Closed

Allegations: The complainant organization alleges anti-union discrimination and violation of the right of education workers in the private sector to bargain collectively

1. 666. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 8 January 2025 from the Private Sector Teachers’ Union (Öğretmen-Sen).
2. 667. The Government of Türkiye sent its observations in communications dated 28 March, 5 May and 12 September 2025.
3. 668. Türkiye 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).

The complainant’s allegations

1. 669. In its communication dated 8 January 2025, the Öğretmen-Sen explains that it was established in August 2021 as an independent union, that is not affiliated with any other trade union confederation in Türkiye, by educators in the private sector. The majority of its nearly 12,000 members are teachers working in private educational institutions, including private schools, rehabilitation centres and private universities. The complainant alleges that, despite its expanding membership, its members are completely deprived of the right to collective bargaining due to the branch of activity threshold for becoming a recognized collective bargaining agent. It further alleges insufficient protection against anti-union discrimination.
2. 670. The complainant alleges, in particular, that Law No. 6356 on Trade Unions and Collective Labour Agreements, as applied in the “Commerce, Office, Education, and Fine Arts” branch of activity, violates Conventions Nos 87 and 98. It explains that the Law delineates 20 industry sectors and allows for the establishment of unions solely on the basis of the branch of activity (article 3), which means that a union may organize only within one of these defined sectors. The specifics of these industries are outlined in the Industries Directive; however, in the complainant’s view, these 20 branches of activity/sectors are defined arbitrarily.
3. 671. The complainant also alleges that the threshold for becoming a collective bargaining agent is exceptionally high: a union must represent at least 1 per cent of workers employed within a given branch of activity (article 41 of Law No. 6356), which affects trade unions’ ability to represent their members in collective bargaining. It indicates that, according to the Government’s 2023 data, nearly three quarters of the unions in the country did not qualify as bargaining agents due to the application of the 1 per cent threshold requirement. The complainant further points out that according to ILOSTAT, in 2019, only 7.4 per cent of employees in Türkiye were covered by a collective agreement. As of 2022, bargaining coverage in the private sector amounted to only 5 per cent.
4. 672. The complainant explains that it operates within the branch of activity No. 10 (“Commerce, Office, Education, and Fine Arts”), which is an arbitrary and overly broad amalgamation of various services. In 2013, 20 per cent of workers in the formal sector were employed in this branch of activity. By 2024, this figure increased to 25 per cent and as of June 2024, approximately 4.3 million employees were working in it, making it the largest branch of activity in the country. Consequently, in order for a union to be recognized as a collective bargaining agent in that branch of activity, it must account for a minimum of 43,000 members.
5. 673. The complainant indicates that approximately 500,000 education workers in the country are employed by private companies, including private schools, universities, education centres, driving schools and rehabilitation centres for children with disabilities. It points out that with its nearly 12,000 members, the Öğretmen-Sen represents significantly more than 1 per cent of the workforce in the actual industry. The complainant also indicates that it is the only union representing private sector educators.
6. 674. The complainant points out that due to the Government’s privatization policies, the private education sector has expanded exponentially. However, private firms employ teachers under precarious conditions, on fixed-term contracts. Considering that there are no companies with a collective bargaining agreement in the ever-expanding private education sector in Türkiye, the violation of collective bargaining rights of the complainant’s 12,000 members exemplifies a broader issue, namely, the ongoing infringement of rights of nearly half a million employees in the private education industry.
7. 675. The complainant further explains that the legal framework governing employment of private sector teachers in Türkiye underscores the necessity of treating private sector educators as a distinct group. The private education sector, with the exception of private universities, is governed by Law No. 5580 on Private Education Institutions. According to article 9 of that Law, teachers working in the private sector are subject to two different sets of regulations: laws applicable to “workers”, including Labour Law No. 4857; and the legislation applicable to “civil servants”, notably, Law No. 657 on Civil Servants. Different union laws apply to workers and civil servants: specifically, Law No. 6356 applies to workers, while Law No. 4688 on Public Servants’ Trade Unions applies to civil servants. These varying trade union laws establish different industry categorizations for each group. Notably, for public servants, there exists an “Education and Science” industry (No. 2). In the complainant’s view, this supports its argument that the industry it operates in should be recognized separately. The complainant believes that the most effective solution to address this violation is to establish a new industry titled “Education and Science” that would encompass all education workers employed by private firms.
8. 676. The complainant further alleges that anti-union dismissals represent a significant obstacle to freedom of association in Türkiye and that private sector teachers face additional challenges in this regard. Recalling that the private education sector in Türkiye is governed by Law No. 5580 on Private Education Institutions, the complainant indicates that its article 9 stipulates that teachers working in the private sector must have employment contracts for a minimum duration of one calendar year. The complainant explains that private school employers have interpreted this provision to mean that teachers can only be employed under fixed-term contracts of one calendar year. This interpretation was upheld on 23 February 2018 by the Grand General Assembly of the Court of Cassation. The complainant further explains that employment contracts in private educational institutions typically commence on 1 September and end on 31 August of the following year and alleges that this framework is frequently misused by employers, who threaten trade union activists or teachers seeking to assert their rights through trade union activities with non-renewal of their contracts. The complainant points out that when a contract is not renewed due to union activities, workers cannot file a reinstatement lawsuit.
9. 677. The complainant also indicates that Law No. 6356 lacks administrative or penal sanctions applicable in cases of anti-union dismissal. A reinstatement judicial order can be refused by an employer opting for a financial compensation. If a worker is dismissed due to trade union membership or activity and can prove this in court, he or she can receive a “union compensation,” which cannot be less than the worker’s annual wage. In the case of private sector teachers, not only could they not be reinstated if their contracts were not renewed, they would not receive “union compensation” either. The complainant thus points out that the lack of “union compensation” – the only disincentive for employers provided by the Turkish trade union law – allows employers to dismiss all of the union’s activists with ease and without any repercussions. In this respect, the complainant points out that, by terminating contracts under the pretext of “expiration” of a fixed-term agreement, employers aim to eliminate unions from the workplace and obstruct collective bargaining. The complainant considers that article 9 of Law No. 5580 should be amended and teachers should be mandated to be employed on contracts of unlimited duration.
10. 678. The complainant further alleges that more than 100 of its members and executives were dismissed from their jobs due to their union activities and refers to the following examples:
    • • The complainant’s President, Mr Eren Edebali, began working at a private school on 1 September 2016. Like all union’s executives who are not professional union leaders, he continued to work as a teacher at that school. In his capacity as the union president, Mr Edebali frequently made statements and gave interviews to the press, which was criticized by the school administrator. At the beginning of 2023, together with other founding members, Mr Edebali requested a salary increase from the management; by mid-2023, about half of the school’s 30 teachers became members of the union. The school terminated Mr Edebali’s employment contract on 31 August 2023. Article 24 of Law No. 6356 regulates the job security of trade union representatives. This provision protects union representatives and union leaders who continue to work in the workplace with strong job security and states that these persons cannot be dismissed without just cause. In application of this provision, the union filed a lawsuit for reinstatement and union compensation for Mr Edebali on 18 September 2023. However, on 25 September 2024, Istanbul 39th Labour Court dismissed the case on procedural grounds. The court rejected the reinstatement request, stating that Mr Edebali worked under a fixed-term contract and therefore did not benefit from job security provisions and did not decide on the issue of trade union compensation without stating any justification. The union applied to the Court of Appeal.
    • • Ms Nur Ülküm Ülkü, one of the founders of the Öğretmen-Sen and a member of its central executive board had been working for 15 years at the same school where Mr Edebali worked between 2016 and 2023. Four founders of the complainant union worked at this school, and before the wave of dismissals in 2023, about half of the school’s 30 teachers were members of the union. Ms Ülkü was also dismissed on 31 August 2023 due to her union activities. Ms Ülkü filed a lawsuit for union compensation with the Istanbul 33rd Labour Court 2023/779 alleging dismissal for union activities. The case is pending before the local court. The Öğretmen-Sen also applied to the Constitutional Court with a request for interim measures (reinstatement) without exhausting the first instance court remedies.
    • • Mr Ozan Fındık, another founder of the Öğretmen-Sen, member of its central executive board and its general organizing secretary, began working at a private school in September 2021, one month after the founding of the union. In the two years that he worked there, the number of union members at the school reached 70. During this period, Mr Fındık gave interviews to the press about the problems of teachers. According to the complainant, for this reason, he was warned by the administrators and subjected to mobbing. In February 2023, unionized teachers working at the school sent individual emails to the school administration and requested a meeting to discuss improving their salaries and rights. The administration organized several meetings, but the work conditions of the teachers did not improve. In May 2023, teachers asked the union to convey their demands to the administration on their behalf. The union sent an email to the school with the teachers’ demands. A few days after this email was sent, the school administration informed Mr Fındık that his contract would not be renewed. In the summer of 2023, Mr Fındık was dismissed from his job. He filed a lawsuit for union compensation with the Istanbul Anatolian 9th Labour Court. The lawsuit is pending. After his dismissal, Mr Fındık applied to various schools. On 7 June 2023, one of them sent him an email and a contract indicating that they wanted to work with him. On 8 June 2023, Mr Fındık spoke to the school’s administrative affairs officer and told him that he was a union leader. On 9 June 2023, the school sent an email to Mr Fındık informing him that they were no longer willing to work with him. Mr Fındık filed a trade union compensation lawsuit against the school under article 25 of the Trade Union Law. The lawsuit is pending at the Istanbul 33rd Labour Court. Mr Fındık found a job at another school in September 2023, where he advocated for teachers’ rights. On 7 May 2024, a teacher at a private school was murdered by a student. Education unions declared 9 May a day of mourning. On 9 May, at the school where Mr Fındık worked, members of the union expressed that they did not want to attend classes on that painful day. As the union representative, Mr Fındık sent an official letter to the school administration. Five days after this incident, the school administration informed Mr Fındık that his contract would not be renewed the following year. When Mr Fındık spoke to the employer, the employer told him that while the fact that Mr Fındık was a trade union member was not a problem, the issue was that he was organizing other workers in the school. Mr Fındık will be filing a lawsuit in November 2024.
    • • Mr Gökhan Çınar, one of the complainant’s Istanbul representatives, was dismissed while negotiating with the management on behalf of the union at the school where he worked. The lawsuit filed by the Öğretmen-Sen for union compensation was heard by the Bakırköy 27th Labour Court, the court of first instance. While the court accepted other receivable items, it rejected the claim for trade union compensation. The reasoned decision emphasized that Mr Çınar worked under a fixed-term contract.
    • • Finally, the complainant alleges that after the national minimum wage hike in January 2024, trade union members demanded a meeting with the administration of a school due to the lack of an increase in teachers’ wages and the non-payment of additional course fees. When their demands were not met, they staged a clapping protest outside the school on 22 March 2024. Subsequently, they sent an email to the school administration and reiterated their demand for a meeting. They put union announcements on the boards allocated to teachers by the school administration. On 25 March 2024, the school administration launched a disciplinary investigation into these events and thereafter claimed that the teachers’ pursuit of their rights was “forbidden”. In June 2024, Messrs Filiz Öztürk and Hilal Yağmur and another 8 trade union members were informed that their fixed-term employment contracts were not going to be renewed. All ten teachers had participated in the clapping protest. The mandatory mediation process ended in disagreement. The complainant indicates that it will be filing lawsuits in December 2024.
11. 679. The complainant indicates that its rapid growth, coupled with increasing media and public attention to its actions, compelled government officials to engage with it on multiple occasions. In particular, the complainant had meetings with the Minister of National Education, the General Director of Private Education Institutions within the same Ministry, the General Director of Labour at the Ministry of Labour and Social Security (MoLSS), and the National Education Commission of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye to communicate its demands. The union’s demands were not met. The complainant considers that the above described breaches cannot be addressed without amending national laws and regulations.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 680. In its communications dated 28 March, 5 May and 12 September 2025, the Government indicates that it is unclear whether in this particular case, domestic remedies have been exhausted. The Government considers that the complainant did not provide specific information and documents to support its claims, which are general, abstract, and unsubstantiated. The Government considers that this situation contradicts the provision in article 2 of the Standing Orders concerning the procedure for the examination of representations under articles 24 and 25 of the Constitution of the International Labour Organization, which outlines the “receivability of the representation”. The Government further considers that the applicant has not provided a concrete and detailed explanation as to which rights under Convention No. 87 have been violated and how.
2. 681. The Government indicates that article 51 of the national Constitution grants workers and employers the right to establish unions, and to join and leave them, while also stating that this right can be limited by law for specific reasons. Its article 53 regulates the right of workers and employers to engage in collective bargaining and defines public employees’ right to collective bargaining. Article 54 contains provisions on strikes and lockouts. According to the Government, when considered together, these provisions imply that the right to organize is a constitutional right of workers, employers and public servants.
3. 682. Law No. 6356 further details these rights and protects workers’ rights to unionize, engage in collective bargaining, and to strike. Under the Law, all employees, including private-sector teachers, have the right to participate in trade union activities. Its article 3 stipulates that trade unions can be established without prior authorization and may operate solely within their designated branch of activity. Article 4 specifies that the branches of activity are listed in the annex of the law and are regulated by the MoLSS through relevant regulations. Article 5 outlines the procedure for determining branches of activity, which is carried out by the MoLSS and published in the Official Gazette. Interested parties can appeal these decisions within a set time frame. Changes in branches of activity do not affect existing collective labour agreements. Trade union regulations are shaped with consideration for the balance of the labour market and economic stability, and trade union structure is regulated with specific thresholds to ensure effective representation of workers. The branch of activity threshold provides for a broad representation mechanism while preserving trade union pluralism. When determining the branches of activity, Türkiye’s economic structure, ILO standards, EU legislation and the MoLSS decisions are taken into account.
4. 683. According to article 41 of Law No. 6356, a workers’ union must meet certain thresholds to engage in collective bargaining. Specifically, the union must have at least 1 per cent membership of workers in the relevant branch of activity. Additionally, it must represent more than half of workers in the workplace or at least 40 per cent of the workers across the enterprise. If multiple unions meet the 40 per cent threshold, the union with the highest membership becomes the authorized bargaining representative. The MoLSS publishes statistics on branches of activity every January and July, which are used in the collective bargaining process. Once a trade union receives an authorization certificate, its status is not affected by the subsequent statistics. In case of objections to the statistics, a judicial review process is initiated, with final decisions made within a specified time frame. To determine the authorized trade union and compile statistics, the MoLSS relies on membership and withdrawal notifications submitted to the Ministry, as well as worker notifications made to the Social Security Institution.
5. 684. The Government indicates that the concept of “branch of activity” is a fundamental aspect of collective labour law in Türkiye, serving as the basis for the establishment, operation, activity thresholds and authorization processes of trade unions. Under Law No. 6356, there are 20 designated branches of activity, and trade unions are permitted to operate exclusively within the branch they have chosen. The branch of activity-based organization plays a vital role in safeguarding trade union freedom, protecting workers’ rights, and reinforcing the overall structure of trade unions. By clearly defining the scope within which trade unions can operate, this system helps to maintain an organized and effective trade union framework. The established threshold is essential for ensuring that trade unions have sufficient representation and influence within their branch of activity. Moreover, the effectiveness of trade unions depends on their ability to address social and economic issues within their branch and to leverage their practical experience to provide relevant solutions. This capacity to engage with industry-specific challenges enhances their operational effectiveness and advocacy power.
6. 685. The Government explains that Law No. 6356 was drafted in consultation with the social partners and was enacted on 18 October 2013. During this process, the number of branches of activity was reduced from the originally proposed 28 to 20, streamlining the structure for greater efficiency and clarity. Upon the enactment of the Law, the branch of activity threshold was initially set at 10 per cent, then quickly reduced to 3 per cent and was further lowered to 1 per cent on 10 September 2014. Four exemptions were granted to trade unions that had exceeded the previous threshold but failed to meet the new 1 per cent threshold during the period from 2013 to 2020. This exemption continued until 17 July 2020, and no new exemptions have been granted since then. Among the trade unions benefiting from the exemption, three exceeded the 1 per cent threshold during or after the exemption period. However, in general, there was no significant increase in the membership rates of the trade unions that benefited from the exemption. In contrast, the unionization rate, which was 9.21 per cent in January 2013, increased to 10.65 per cent in January 2015 and 14.02 per cent in July 2025, showing a significant rise in the proportion of unionized workers nationwide after the introduction of the 1 per cent threshold.
7. 686. The Government indicates that the increasing number of trade unions meeting the branch of activity threshold demonstrates the effectiveness of the 1 per cent threshold in ensuring strong unionism. For example, following the establishment of the Teachers’ Union in August 2021, the January 2022 statistics showed that the number of trade unions meeting the threshold was 58, and rose to 65 in July 2025. The presence of strong trade unions is critical in the struggle for workers’ rights and in resolving conflicts of interest in industrial relations, and this strength is achieved through more workers coming together under one umbrella. Organizing based on the branch of activity serves this purpose, and the 1 per cent threshold is an important measure introduced to ensure trade unions are strong.
8. 687. The Government further indicates that in its decision dated 14 May 2015, the Constitutional Court rejected the request for annulment of the 1 per cent requirement of article 41 of Law No. 6356. The Court stated that while trade unions that failed to meet the 1 per cent branch of activity membership threshold may be deprived of the opportunity to negotiate collective agreements, they still retain the right to engage in basic trade union activities such as defending their members’ rights and interests and representing them in individual complaints. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the 1 per cent threshold, which is set to enable stronger trade unions to engage in collective bargaining, does not impose an excessive burden on workers and does not constitute an unreasonable interference with the right to unionize.
9. 688. The Government indicates that under the framework of the EU/ILO Promotion of Social Dialogue in Working Life project, workshops were conducted with social partners to consider modifications to this model, but no consensus emerged. Furthermore, the Tripartite Advisory Board decided, at its meeting on 20 October 2023, to establish sub-working groups to review the legislation. The sub-working group on Law No. 6356 includes the MoLSS and social partners such as the Confederation of Turkish Trade Unions (TÜRK-İŞ), Confederation of Turkish Real Trade Unions (HAK-İŞ), Confederation of Progressive Trade Unions of Turkey (DİSK), and Turkish Confederation of Employers' Associations (TİSK). During meetings, the law, and the relevant regulations and practice were reviewed. The sub-working group gathered in October 2024 and March 2025 to discuss issues related to the certification of trade unions as bargaining agents. The MoLSS proposed revising article 41(1) of the Law and sought the views of the social partners; however, no consensus was reached. The Government indicates that the MoLSS is nevertheless open to evaluating proposals for legislative amendments if presented through consensus by social partners.
10. 689. With regard to the alleged anti-union discrimination, the Government indicates that allegations of anti-union dismissals in the private sector were thoroughly investigated, and legal protection was provided. Labour Law No. 4857 and Law No. 6356 ensure reinstatement and provide for compensation rights in this context. In particular, article 23 of Law No. 6356 safeguards employment contracts of trade union officers during their term of office. If a worker leaves his or her job to serve as a trade union officer, his or her employment contract is suspended, with an option to terminate the contract voluntarily, in which case they are entitled to severance pay. If the employment contract is terminated during their leadership term, compensation is calculated based on the equivalent salary at the time of termination. Once the term of a trade union officer ends, they have the right to request reinstatement to their previous position or a suitable role under specific conditions. If reinstatement is not possible, the employment contract is considered terminated. These provisions are designed to protect workers’ rights and ensure the freedom of trade union activities by safeguarding the employment security of trade union officers.
11. 690. Furthermore, article 24 of Law No. 6356 stipulates that the employment contracts of workplace union representatives cannot be terminated without just cause, and the reasons for termination must be stated in writing. In a case of termination, the trade union representative or member can file a lawsuit within one month. The case will be resolved using a simplified procedure, with the Court of Appeals making a final decision. If the court orders reinstatement, the termination is considered invalid, and wages and other rights between the date of termination and the date the decision becomes final will be paid.
12. 691. Article 25 of Law No. 6356 prohibits employers from hiring or dismissing workers based on their membership in a particular trade union or from discriminating between union members and non-members. If a worker is dismissed or subjected to unequal treatment due to participation in trade union activities, he or she is entitled to compensation of at least one year’s salary. In cases of dismissal for trade union-related reasons, the worker has the right to file a lawsuit. The burden of proof lies with the employer to justify the dismissal. However, if the worker presents compelling evidence suggesting anti-union discrimination, the employer must prove the legitimacy of their actions. Furthermore, any clauses in collective bargaining agreements or employment contracts that contradict this legislative provision are deemed invalid, ensuring the protection of the worker’s rights. This provision is designed to safeguard trade union freedom and prevent anti-union discrimination.
13. 692. Furthermore, according to article 18 of Labour Law No. 4857, in workplaces with 30 or more employees, the employer must have valid reasons such as the employee’s qualifications, behaviour, or the requirements of the workplace to terminate the indefinite-term employment contract of an employee who has at least six months of service. However, trade union membership or participation in trade union activities cannot be considered a valid reason for termination. Significant legal protections have been provided against the dismissal of workers, workplace union representatives, and trade union officers. Employer-driven anti-union discrimination is prohibited, and in cases of violations, workers’ rights are preserved while employers face administrative or criminal sanctions.
14. 693. The Government explains that under Law No. 5580 on Private Educational Institutions, employment contracts of private school teachers are required to be of a fixed-term duration. This is due to the nature of multiple contracts that need to be renewed annually, making it impossible to reference a single minimum-duration contract. Additionally, under fixed-term contracts, both parties have the option to terminate the agreement after the agreed minimum duration, in accordance with article 17 of the Labour Law. However, this arrangement does not align with the intended purpose of Law No. 5580, which seeks to protect the mutual interests of both the teacher and the private school during the educational period. Characterizing the contract specified in article 9 of Law No. 5580 as an indefinite-term contract contradicts the law’s purpose. The primary goal of the law is to ensure uninterrupted education for students, and the regulation is designed to prioritize the stability of education and the protection of students, rather than the teacher. According to the Constitutional Court’s decision of 23 February 2018, contracts under Law No. 5580 are considered fixed-term contracts, and it is accepted that when the contract expires, the employment relationship naturally ends. Consequently, the expiration of a fixed-term contract is not considered a dismissal, but rather a normal conclusion of the employment relationship. Law No. 6356 prohibits the dismissal of employees due to trade union activities and seeks to prevent discrimination based on such activities. While the expiration of a fixed-term contract for teachers employed under such terms is considered lawful, termination of a contract that is proven to be linked to trade union activities, gives to affected employees the right to pursue legal action and seek judicial redress.
15. 694. The Government indicates that the Turkish legal system aims to strengthen the avenues for seeking rights and enhance legal security. To this end, the judicial process consists of three stages: first instance, appeal, and cassation. After the judicial process, individuals have the right to make an individual application to the Constitutional Court in cases of alleged violations of human rights resulting from decisions made by independent judicial bodies.
16. 695. With regard to the specific cases of anti-union discrimination referred to by the complainant, the Government provides the following information:
    • • The case of Mr Eren Edebali was dismissed by the court of first instance (Istanbul 39th Labour Court, Case No. 2024/332, Decision No. 2024/11). The court established that the claimant, despite being involved in trade union activities, was employed under a fixed term contract that naturally ended upon the expiry of its term without renewal. The court found no evidence indicating that the termination was unlawful or that it was based on discriminatory motives linked to trade union membership; rather it resulted from the lawful expiration of a fixed-term agreement, which the employer had no legal obligation to renew. This decision was upheld on appeal.
    • • The cases of Ms Nur Ülküm Ülkü (Istanbul 33rd Labour Court, Case No. 2023/779), as well as of Mr Ozan Fındık (Istanbul 33rd Labour Court, Case No. 2024/126) are pending. In a separate case filed by Mr Fındık before the Istanbul Anatolian 9th Labour Court, the court dismissed the claim. According to the court, the claimant alleged that he was not recruited due to his involvement in trade union activities; however, he failed to substantiate the claim with concrete evidence. The respondent employer stated that the recruitment process was contingent upon the successful completion of an interview, and it was established that the claimant did not sign the preliminary agreement, resulting in the absence of mutual consent between the parties. Furthermore, it was determined that other employees affiliated with different trade unions were employed at the respondent’s workplace. In the absence of sufficient evidence beyond witness testimonies, the court concluded that the claimant’s allegations were not proven and accordingly dismissed the case.
    • • The case of Mr Gökhan Çinar was partially upheld (Bakırköy 27th Labour Court, Case No. 2023/123, Decision No. 2024/327). Following a thorough review of the evidence and the parties’ arguments, the Court concluded that the claimant’s employment contract had been unlawfully terminated by the employer, contrary to the employer’s claim that the claimant had resigned. Although the claimant was a member of a trade union, the evidence presented was insufficient to prove that the dismissal was motivated by trade union activities; therefore, the claim for trade union compensation was denied. It was further established that the employment relationship was based on a fixed-term contract, and that the premature and unjustified termination gave the claimant the right to compensation for the remaining period of the contract. The Court also determined that the claimant was entitled to a preparation allowance as provided by the relevant educational regulations. However, claims for additional course fees and wages for periods allegedly worked beyond the registered employment dates were dismissed due to lack of sufficient evidence. As a result, the Court partially upheld the claimant’s claims, awarding compensation for the remaining term’s wages and the preparation allowance, while rejecting the other claims. Judicial expenses and attorneys’ fees were apportioned between the parties proportionally to the outcome of the case. No appeal has been filed against the judgment.
17. 696. The Government emphasizes that Türkiye remains fully committed to upholding the principles of freedom of association and collective bargaining, as enshrined in Conventions Nos 87 and 98.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 697. The Committee notes that the allegations submitted by the Öğretmen-Sen, the complainant organization in this case, relate to the exercise of collective bargaining by education workers in the private sector and insufficient protection against anti-union discrimination.
2. 698. The Committee observes that the Government questions the receivability of the allegations in this case, as domestic remedies were not exhausted and the complainant’s allegations were, in its view, neither specific, nor substantiated.
3. 699. In this regard, and at the outset, the Committee recalls that although the use of internal legal procedures, whatever the outcome, is undoubtedly a factor to be taken into consideration, the Committee has always considered that, in view of its responsibilities, its competence to examine allegations is not subject to the exhaustion of national procedures. Furthermore, it is within the mandate of the Committee to examine whether, and to what extent, satisfactory evidence is presented to support allegations; this appreciation goes to the merits of the case and cannot support a finding of irreceivability [see Compilation of Decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, paras 12 and 14]. The Committee will thus proceed to examine the allegations submitted in this case.
4. 700. The Committee observes that the complainant explains that article 3 of Law No. 6356 delineates 20 branches of activity and allows for the establishment of trade unions solely within one of these defined sectors. The complainant, which operates within the “Commerce, Office, Education, and Fine Arts” branch of activity, alleges that this branch is an arbitrary and overly broad amalgamation of various services. Pursuant to article 41 of Law No. 6356, the threshold for becoming a collective bargaining agent is at least 1 per cent of workers employed in a given branch of activity. The complainant points out that for the branch of the activity in question, which includes approximately 4.3 million employees as of June 2024, in order for a union to be recognized as a collective bargaining agent, it must have a minimum of 43,000 members. The complainant explains that approximately 500,000 education workers are employed by private companies in Türkiye, hence, with its nearly 12,000 members, the Öğretmen-Sen represents significantly more than 1 per cent of the workforce in the actual private education industry, wherein it is the only trade union organization. According to the complainant, this resulted in a situation where currently there was no company in the ever expanding private education sector with a collective bargaining agreement. Thus, according to the complainant, beyond violation of its collective bargaining rights, this case illustrates a broader issue: the infringement of such rights of workers in the private education sector.
5. 701. The Committee notes that according to the Government, the concept of “branch of activity” is a fundamental aspect of collective labour law in Türkiye, which strengthens trade unions and ensures that they have sufficient representation and influence within their respective branches of activity. The Government indicates that Law No. 6356 was drafted in consultation with the social partners and that during the drafting process, the number of branches of activity was reduced from the originally proposed 28 to 20. The Government explains that article 5 of the Law outlines the procedure for determining branches of activities, which is carried out by the MoLSS, and that the parties concerned can appeal the decision in court. The Government further indicates that following the enactment of Law No. 6356, the branch of activity threshold was gradually reduced from 10 per cent to 1 per cent and points out that in 2015, the Constitutional Court rejected the request for annulment of the 1 per cent requirement of article 41 of Law No. 6356. The Government explains that the current model was discussed with the social partners in the framework of the EU/ILO Promotion of Social Dialogue in Working Life project in Türkiye (2016–2018) with a view to its possible amendment, but no consensus emerged at that time. Furthermore, a tripartite working group to review the legislation on the matter at hand was established in October 2023. It met in October 2024 and March 2025. The MoLSS proposed revising article 41(1) of the Law and sought the views of the social partners; however, no consensus was reached. The Government indicates that it remains open to evaluating proposals for legislative amendments if presented through consensus by social partners.
6. 702. The Committee notes that pursuant to article 4(3) of Law No. 6356, the classification of branches of activity is made by the MoLSS, taking into account international standards and the opinions of workers’ and employers’ confederations and that pursuant to article 5 (1), the parties concerned may apply against this decision to the local court having jurisdiction in labour matters. With regard to the 1 per cent threshold requirement for the purpose of collective bargaining at the industry level, the Committee recalls that it had examined the application of this requirement in Case No. 3021 concerning Türkiye. It recalls, in particular, that at its June 2017 meeting, it noted that the Law was amended to reduce the branch of activity threshold requirement from 3 per cent to 1 per cent. On that occasion, the Committee had nevertheless requested the Government to continue reviewing the impact of the perpetuation of the branch threshold requirement on the trade union movement and the national collective machinery as a whole in full consultation with the social partners, and should it be confirmed that the perpetuation of the 1 per cent threshold has a negative impact on the national collective bargaining machinery, revise the law with a view to removing it [see Report No. 382, para. 145]. At its meeting in October 2019, noting that the issue of the 1 per cent threshold was being followed by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) in respect of Conventions Nos 87 and 98, the Committee referred to it the legislative aspects of this case and decided not to pursue its examination of the case [see Report No. 391, para. 70]. The Committee takes note of the 2024 observation of the CEACR on the application of Convention No. 98 in which the latter noted an allegation that the 1 per cent threshold prevented significant trade union organizations in a variety of sectors from engaging in collective bargaining. The CEACR observed that close to three quarters of the unions in the country would not qualify for becoming a bargaining agent due to the application of the 1 per cent sectoral threshold, and that the combination of rules governing the recognition of organizations for the purposes of collective bargaining was not conducive to the development of collective bargaining in the country. The Committee observes that this is of particular concern when no union is recognized as a collective bargaining agent in a sector or part of a sector. Noting that the Government reaffirms its readiness to consider proposals to amend section 41(1) of Act No. 6356 if the social partners reach consensus in this respect, the Committee, like the CEACR, urges the Government to take appropriate measures to amend section 41(1) of Act No. 6356, in full consultation with the social partners, so as to ensure that more workers’ organizations can engage in collective bargaining.
7. 703. With regard to the alleged insufficient protection against anti-union dismissals, the Committee notes that the complainant makes a general allegation that legislation lacks administrative or penal sanctions in cases of anti-union dismissals and that a judicial order for reinstatement can be refused by the employer by opting for a financial compensation – a “union compensation”. The complainant then refers to the cases of non-renewal of fixed-term contracts of its members and executives and explains in this regard that, contrary to workers covered by Labour Law No. 4857, teachers in private educational institutions are employed on fixed-term contracts, pursuant to Law No. 5580. A non renewal of contract at its expiration is not considered to be a dismissal and thus, if a contract is not renewed due to trade union activities of the person in question, it is not possible for such employees to seek reinstatement. As courts cannot order reinstatement in such cases, a “union compensation” is thus not possible either. The complainant alleges that more than 100 of its members and executives lost their jobs due to their trade union activities and refers to several examples where fixed-term contracts were not renewed.
8. 704. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on various legislative provisions protecting against anti-union discrimination and setting the right of workers to appeal to courts in cases of anti-union dismissals. The Government points out, however, that while Law No. 6356 prohibits dismissals of employees due to trade union activities, expiration of a fixed-term contract is not a dismissal. The Government refers in this respect to the Constitutional Court’s 2018 decision, which determined that when the contract expires, the employment relationship naturally ends. Thus, while employers cannot terminate contracts (including fixed-term contracts) due to trade union activities of workers, this is not the case when a contract expires. Regarding the cases referred to by the complainant, the Committee notes that, according to the information provided by the Government, at least in one case, the court established that despite being involved in trade union activities, the person concerned was employed under a fixed-term contract that naturally ended upon the expiration of the term without being renewed. Other cases of non-renewal of contracts are still pending.
9. 705. With regard to the general allegation of insufficient protection against anti-union dismissals, the Committee refers to its conclusions and recommendations in Case No. 3410 concerning Türkiye, examined at its June 2022 meeting, which also dealt with the allegation that Law No. 6356 allowed employers to pay enhanced compensation to illegally dismissed employees instead of complying with court rulings ordering their reinstatement. The Committee recalled that the Government must ensure an adequate and efficient system of protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, which should include sufficiently dissuasive sanctions and prompt means of redress, emphasizing reinstatement as an effective means of redress [see Compilation, para. 1165]. The Committee also recalled that the necessary measures should be taken so that trade unionists who have been dismissed for activities related to the establishment of a union are reinstated in their functions, if they so wish [see Compilation, para. 1184]. The Committee considered that if reinstatement is not possible, the Government should ensure that the workers concerned are paid adequate compensation, taking into account both the damage incurred and the need to prevent the repetition of such situations in the future. In view of the above, the Committee requested the Government, in cases of anti-union dismissal, to take the necessary measures, including legislative, in full consultation with the social partners, to ensure that employers are not given the option to choose to pay compensation prescribed by law in lieu of reinstatement where ordered and that sufficiently dissuasive sanctions are provided which render the possible remedy of reinstatement meaningful [see Report No. 399, para. 348]. Recalling that it referred the legislative aspects of this case to the CEACR and noting that in its 2024 observation on the application of Convention No. 98, the latter urged the Government, in full consultation with the social partners, to take appropriate measures to adopt effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against anti-union dismissals in the private sector, the Committee expects the Government to take all necessary measures to give effect to its previous recommendation in Case No. 3410.
10. 706. With regard to the non-renewal of fixed-term contracts for anti-union reasons, the Committee understands from the information submitted by the complainant and the Government that there appears to be no protection afforded to workers in such cases, as the expiration of the term of a contract is not considered to be a dismissal to which protection is extended. The Committee recalls that non-renewal of a contract for anti-union reasons constitutes a prejudicial act within the meaning of Article 1 of Convention No. 98 [see Compilation, para. 1093]. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take appropriate measures, including legislative, in full consultation with the social partners, to ensure that non-renewal of a contract for anti-union reasons is prohibited and that the prohibition is accompanied by effective remedies and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions.
11. 707. While noting the specific cases referred to by the complainant in this case, the Committee understands that these were cited to illustrate the lacuna in protection against anti-union discrimination. With reference to the complainant’s indication that the alleged violations cannot be addressed without amending the national legislation and considering that the recommendation above, if given full effect, would address the current legislative lacuna, the Committee will not pursue the examination of these specific cases.
12. 708. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all steps taken to give effect to the recommendations above to the CEACR to which it refers the legislative aspects of this case.

The Committee’s recommendations

1. 709. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee urges the Government to take appropriate measures to amend section 41(1) of Act No. 6356 in full consultation with the social partners, so as to ensure that more workers’ organizations can engage in collective bargaining.
   • (b) The Committee once again requests the Government, in cases of anti-union dismissal, to take the necessary measures, including legislative, in full consultation with the social partners, to ensure that employers are not given the option to choose to pay compensation prescribed by law in lieu of reinstatement where ordered and that sufficiently dissuasive sanctions are provided which render the possible remedy of reinstatement meaningful.
   • (c) The Committee requests the Government to take appropriate measures, including legislative, in full consultation with the social partners, to ensure that non-renewal of a contract for anti-union reasons is prohibited and that the prohibition is accompanied by effective remedies and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions.
   • (d) The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all steps taken to give effect to the recommendations above to the CEACR to which it refers the legislative aspects of this case.
   • (e) The Committee considers that this case does not call for further examination and is closed.