Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 412, November 2025

Case No 3478 (Türkiye) - Complaint date: 16-MAY-24 - Follow-up

Allegations: The complainant organization alleges legislative and practical obstacles to the certification process for collective bargaining and denounces concrete impediments to collective bargaining in a subcontractor company operating in postal services, as well as instances of union-busting and anti-union dismissals

1. 646. The complaint is contained in communications from the Labour Union of Post Office, Phone and Telecommunication Workers of Turkey (PTT Sen) dated 16 May and 4 October 2024.
2. 647. The Government provides its observations in communications received on 22 December 2024 and 12 September 2025.
3. 648. 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).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 649. In its communications dated 16 May and 4 October 2024, the complainant alleges legislative and practical obstacles to the certification process for collective bargaining and denounces concrete impediments to collective bargaining in a subcontractor company operating at the publicly owned postal services, as well as instances of union-busting and anti-union dismissals.
2. 650. In particular, the complainant alleges that section 48 of the Act on Unions and Collective Agreements No. 6356 (Act on Trade Unions), which sets the workplace and industry-wide thresholds for unions to be certified as collective bargaining agents, allows employers to contest such certification in court, after it has been granted by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security (MoLSS). According to the complainant, employers use this option to delay the collective bargaining process, as a union under a certification lawsuit does not have the authority to start collective bargaining or to go on strike until the end of the procedure, which can last up to two years. This gives employers a significant amount of time to engage in union busting activities, including dismissal of those driving unionization and intimidation or bribery of union members. Some employers seek to further delay the ruling by knowingly applying to a court with no jurisdiction. After lengthy proceedings and union-busting, many workers choose to resign from their union. The complainant indicates that the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (Committee of Experts) previously acknowledged this issue and requested the Government to monitor the use of the objection proceedings with a view to preventing and punishing abuses.
3. 651. The complainant further alleges concrete impediments to collective bargaining at Saf and Avrasya General Partnership, a subcontractor company operating at the publicly owned postal services (the subcontractor company). In particular, it indicates that the PTT Sen, which was established by workers employed by subcontractor enterprises operating in the postal services and currently represents 1.25 per cent of the industry’s workers, thus surpassing the necessary 1 per cent threshold to be able to engage in collective bargaining, managed to organize workers at the subcontractor company in Marmara region and applied to the MoLSS for certification to represent those workers in collective bargaining. The complainant received the certification in September 2020, but the subcontractor company challenged the certification in court, and the process took over two years to conclude. While the court ruled in favour of the union in October 2022, the complainant denounces the lengthy procedure and points out that allowing this challenge is futile since union registration is only possible through a Government portal, with the court having access to all the relevant numbers and documents to assess its representativity.
4. 652. The complainant alleges that, even once its certification was approved by the court, the subcontractor company further stalled the process of collective bargaining by ignoring official phone calls for negotiation rounds, which led to the expiry of the legal negotiating period. The case was then referred to a mediator and ended in official disagreement in February 2023. At that point, the law requires a strike ballot among union members, which can be held if the vote request is signed by one quarter of the company’s workers. The complainant alleges that while the union was able to secure the necessary signatures, its request was ultimately rejected by the MoLSS because some of the worker signatories were no longer employed by the subcontractor and, in March 2023, the court cancelled the union’s certification for collective bargaining. The complainant clarifies that due to the lengthy certification procedure, the contract between the subcontractor company and the postal services expired in July 2022, after which a new subcontractor took over the contract. In order to keep their jobs, most of the workers of the previous subcontractor company had to resign and apply to work for the new subcontractor. While there are currently efforts to collect the required signatures and organize workers at the new subcontractor, the complainant again expects a lengthy certification procedure and a new company to take over the contract the year after. The complainant therefore alleges that, in the current legal framework and, particularly, due to delays in the certification process, subcontracted postal services workers cannot benefit from their right to organize and collective bargaining and there is no efficient remedy for representing subcontracted postal service workers. The complainant points out that the shortcomings of the existing legal process were also confirmed by two separate rulings of the Supreme Court in 2024, which stated that the lengthy legal procedures regarding objections to the determination of the representative union, that could be manipulated by employers, constituted a clear infringement of the constitutionally protected right of unionization. Despite these rulings, the Government did not act to address the concerns, and the complainant therefore requests the Government to implement the necessary reforms to the existing legal procedures.
5. 653. The complainant further reports that since its establishment in 2019, subcontractor companies operating at the postal services have hindered its trade union activities and denounces, in particular, anti-union dismissal of four union leaders at the subcontractor company between 2022 and 2023 because of their union involvement. Before their dismissal, they were forced to take unpaid leave, which was also established by the labour inspection in March 2021. According to the complainant, the dismissals were done with impunity, in violation of national law which protects union stewards and administrative officers from anti-union actions. The unionists concerned filed cases before the courts which are currently pending.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 654. In its communications received on 22 December 2024 and 12 September 2025, the Government states that the right to organize and the right to enter into collective labour agreements are firmly established in Türkiye’s Constitution. It indicates that the Act on Trade Unions was prepared through an inclusive process involving consultations with the social partners and reflects Türkiye’s commitment to upholding the fundamental principles of trade union rights and freedoms, especially Conventions Nos 87 and 98. It adds that, with this law, membership processes for labour unions were digitalized through the Government’s e-portal, simplifying the procedure and allowing for more efficient judicial oversight in case of disputes.
2. 655. Turning to the allegations in the present case, the Government firstly indicates that the complainant’s reference to section 48 of the Act on Trade Unions seems to be based on a misunderstanding, since this provision exclusively governs the procedural aspects of submitting signed collective labour agreements to public authorities and posting them in the workplace, whereas it is section 41 of the Act that stipulates the requirement for trade union representation and collective bargaining. The Government adds that, to make unionization more accessible, the Government has progressively reduced the industry threshold for union representation from 10 per cent to 1 per cent.
3. 656. Regarding the alleged judicial delays in the certification procedure, the Government considers these to be isolated incidents resulting from exceptional circumstances rather than systemic issues and affirms its commitment to addressing such occurrences through continuous reviews and improvements of the legal regulations. In particular, a compensation mechanism has been put in place to examine applications related to delayed proceedings within one month of the investigation, trial or final decision. In addition, the functionality of the mediation system has been further enhanced so as to alleviate the courts’ workload and provide faster dispute resolution, reflecting Türkiye’s dedication to improving judicial efficiency and ensuring timely access to justice. The MoLSS also actively implements social dialogue mechanisms to address objections to authority determinations, including through the Tripartite Advisory Board and its sub-working committee, which periodically reviews legislative and practical issues relating to the Act on Trade Unions, with participation from the social partners. During the subcommittee’s meetings held in 2024 and 2025, members discussed issues relating to trade union membership, safeguarding trade union rights and certification with the aim of resolving challenges encountered during the collective bargaining process, including those arising from the practice of authority objections. According to the Government, the criticism and suggestions from the social partners, as well as the decisions of the Constitutional Court, are taken into consideration during these discussions. If consensus is reached, the Government acts upon it, including through legislative amendments. The Government further affirms that all administrative actions, including under the Act on Trade Unions, are subject to judicial review and that mechanisms are in place to address potential rights violations arising from delays and inefficiencies in judicial proceedings. The Constitutional Court has previously issued rulings that certain judicial processes arising from the Act on Trade Unions exceeded a reasonable timeframe and where that was the case, compensation was awarded to the parties concerned and recommendations were made to enhance procedural efficiency.
4. 657. Regarding the concrete allegations against the subcontractor company operating at the postal services, the Government indicates that, following the failure to reach an agreement in the collective bargaining process between the union and the subcontractor company, a strike decision was taken by the union in April 2023, requesting a strike ballot. However, since workers who made the request were not employed at the workplace covered by the collective bargaining on the date when the strike decision was announced, the MoLSS rejected the request. The certification for collective bargaining previously issued to the union therefore became invalid in accordance with section 60(1) of the Act on Trade Unions (the authority to conclude a collective agreement expires if the strike decision is not taken within 60 days from the date of notification of the mediation report). The Government indicates that the complainant filed two separate lawsuits before the administrative courts of Ankara challenging the rejection of its strike ballot request, but these were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as were the appeals to these decisions. The Government explains that, while action taken by the MoLSS is subject to legal review, these matters are within the jurisdiction of labour courts in the judicial branch and not the administrative courts used by the complainant. The Government adds that the Supreme Court had previously issued rulings invalidating the rejection of a strike vote request in cases where workers had transferred to a new employer due to a workplace change and this had been promptly implemented by the Government.
5. 658. Regarding the allegations of anti-union acts at the subcontractor company, the Government informs that the labour inspection conducted in February 2021 did not find evidence of unequal treatment or discrimination against workers in the workplace but did find that trade union leaders had been forced to withdraw their union membership and that their employment contracts were terminated. An administrative fine was therefore imposed on the employer and another administrative fine was sought due to the violation of the prohibition to dismiss trade unionists during a period protected by the law. The Government adds that the four dismissed unionists filed court cases requesting reinstatement, all of which are currently ongoing.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 659. The Committee observes that this case concerns allegations of legislative and practical obstacles to the certification process for collective bargaining, as well as instances of union-busting and anti union dismissals in a subcontractor company in the postal services.
2. 660. Regarding the alleged obstacles to collective bargaining, the Committee firstly notes the complainant’s more general allegations that the current legal framework, which allows employers to contest a union’s certification for collective bargaining, is used by employers as a tactic to delay collective bargaining, since a union under a certification lawsuit may not engage in collective bargaining until the end of the procedure. The Committee further notes the complainant’s concerns that a certification lawsuit can last up to two years and that such significant judicial delays enable employers to engage in intimidation and union-busting activities, which ultimately results in many unionists withdrawing their membership and the union losing its bargaining certification. While the complainant argues that these obstacles seriously restrict the right to collective bargaining and require reforms to the existing legal procedures, the Government, for its part, considers that judicial delays relating to certification lawsuits are isolated incidents, not systemic issues, and can be addressed through existing measures and mechanisms, including judicial review of administrative actions, a compensation mechanism, enhanced mediation system to decrease the courts’ workload and social dialogue mechanisms (the Tripartite Advisory Board and its sub-working committee).
3. 661. While taking note of these mechanisms and of the Government’s views that delays in judicial proceedings are isolated incidents, the Committee observes from the material provided by the complainant that, in several instances, and despite some existing procedural safeguards against unjustified objections, Türkiye’s Supreme Court actually expressed a need to reconsider the current system considering that the lengthy legal procedures regarding objections to the determination of the representative union could be manipulated by the employers and constituted a clear infringement of the constitutionally protected right of unionization. The Committee further observes in this regard that both the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards have previously addressed concerns of delays in court proceedings dealing with the legal validity of unions’ collective bargaining certifications and, stressing the potential adverse impact of lengthy proceedings on the development of collective bargaining, requested the Government to ensure that such proceedings are concluded within a reasonable time and to monitor the use of the objection proceedings, with a view to preventing and punishing abuses. In line with the above and taking note of the Government’s commitment to addressing delays in judicial proceedings, including through improvements to the legal regulations and social dialogue mechanisms, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in consultation with the social partners, including legislative, to ensure that recourse to judicial challenges to collective bargaining certifications does not have the effect of unduly restricting the right to collective bargaining and that any unreasonable delays in such proceedings are avoided, including through robust procedural safeguards to prevent abuses. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any measures taken in this respect to the Committee of Experts, to which it refers this aspect of the case.
4. 662. The Committee further notes that, to illustrate the broader allegations above, the complainant denounces concrete impediments to collective bargaining at a subcontractor company operating in the publicly owned postal services. The Committee notes that the complainant denounces, on the one hand, overly lengthy judicial proceedings following the subcontractor’s challenge to the union’s bargaining certification, which took over two years, allowing the subcontractor company to engage in prolonged union-busting, and, on the other hand, the employer’s tactics to further delay collective bargaining after the issuance of the certification, which led to the expiry of the negotiating period, unsuccessful mediation, refusal by the MoLSS to grant a strike ballot and, ultimately, the expiry of the union’s collective bargaining certification. The Committee notes that while the Government does not pronounce itself on the prolonged judicial proceedings or the alleged delaying tactics by the subcontractor company, it affirms that the union’s certification for collective bargaining expired as the union was unable to secure a strike ballot within the prescribed time after the end of mediation due to many workers having changed employment for a new subcontractor. It also asserts that MoLSS actions, such as rejection of the strike ballot, are subject to legal review, but that the objections filed by the complainant were made to courts without jurisdiction.
5. 663. The Committee understands from the above that there is no apparent disagreement between the complainant and the Government on the factual background to the case but that, unlike the Government, the complainant argues that the current legal framework characterized by lengthy procedures, combined with frequent changes of subcontractor companies and their delaying tactics, leads to a situation where subcontracted postal service workers cannot benefit from their right to collective bargaining. The Committee recalls in this regard that collective bargaining between the relevant trade union and the party who determines the terms and conditions of employment of the subcontracted/agency workers should always be possible. It pertains to the Government to ensure, through appropriate measures, that subcontracting is not used as a way to evade the application of the freedom of association guarantees provided for in legislation and to ensure that trade unions representing subcontracted workers may effectively seek to improve the living and working conditions of those whom they represent [see Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, paras 1283 and 1413]. Further recalling that the principle that both employers and trade unions should negotiate in good faith and make efforts to reach an agreement means that any unjustified delay in the holding of negotiations should be avoided [see Compilation, para. 1330], the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that conditions are in place among the subcontractor companies at the postal services to allow subcontracted workers and their organizations to effectively engage in collective bargaining to improve their working conditions. The Committee also requests the Government to ensure that subcontracting does not deprive these workers of their essential rights and requests the Government to keep it informed of any measures taken in this respect.
6. 664. Finally, the Committee notes that the complainant alleges anti-union practices by subcontractor companies in the postal services since its establishment in 2019 and denounces, in particular, the dismissal of four trade union leaders with impunity. The Committee notes the Government’s assertion that the labour inspection conducted into the matter did not find evidence of unequal treatment or discrimination but did find that four union leaders were forced to withdraw their membership and had their contracts terminated, as a result of which an administrative fine was imposed on the employer, and the court cases filed by the concerned individuals are currently pending. The Committee recalls in this regard that, especially at the initial stages of unionization in a workplace, dismissal of trade union representatives might fatally compromise incipient attempts at exercising the right to organize, as it not only deprives the workers of their representatives, but also has an intimidating effect on other workers who could have envisaged assuming trade union functions or simply join the union [see Compilation, para. 1131]. Further recalling that anti-union discrimination is one of the most serious violations of freedom of association, as it may jeopardize the very existence of trade unions [see Compilation, para. 1072], the Committee trusts that the judicial proceedings concerning the four dismissed union leaders will be concluded without delay and that the appropriate remedy will be applied, where applicable, including reinstatement and adequate compensation, should their dismissal be found to be connected to their trade union membership or activities. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the judicial proceedings and to provide a copy of the judgments.

The Committee’s recommendations

1. 665. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in consultation with the social partners, including legislative, to ensure that recourse to judicial challenges to collective bargaining certifications does not have the effect of unduly restricting the right to collective bargaining and that any unreasonable delays in such proceedings are avoided, including through robust procedural safeguards to prevent abuses. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any measures taken in this respect to the Committee of Experts, to which it refers this aspect of the case.
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that conditions are in place among the subcontractor companies at the postal services to allow subcontracted workers and their organizations to effectively engage in collective bargaining to improve their working conditions. The Committee also requests the Government to ensure that subcontracting does not deprive these workers of their essential rights and requests the Government to keep it informed of any measures taken in this respect.
   • (c) The Committee trusts that the judicial proceedings concerning the four union leaders dismissed by the subcontractor will be concluded without delay and that the appropriate remedy, where applicable, will be applied, including reinstatement and adequate compensation, should their dismissal be found to be connected to their trade union membership or activities. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the judicial proceedings and to provide a copy of the judgments.