International Centre for Trade Union Rights

Violations of trade union rights in TurkeyAuthor(s): Alex ReidSource: International Union Rights, Vol. 3, No. 1, Corporate Codes of Conduct (1996), pp. 22-23Published by: International Centre for Trade Union RightsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41937024 .

Accessed: 13/06/2014 04:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

International Centre for Trade Union Rights is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to International Union Rights.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.105.154.127 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:03:48 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SURVEY □ TURKEY

Violations of trade union

rights in

Turkey

Alex Reid

Alex Reid is staff member at ICTUR international head office

TWO the over

BRUTAL

country recent months

attacks

by the led on

International to Turkish

an emergency trade

Transport

unionists visit to over recent months led to an emergency visit to

the country by the International Transport Workers Federation (ITF) in August 1995. Kees Marges, who represented the ITF' s General Secretary on the mission, was investigating violations of trade union rights in two specific cases and assessing the human and trade union rights situation in Turkey in general. Firstly, he was detailed to look into the case of 140

locked-out workers at Inchcape Retrans - part of Inchcape pic - the British-based motors, marketing and services giant. The workers at the factory had been facing intimidation since joining the ITF-affil- iated union TUMTIS. This resulted in an attack on the workforce as they reported, as normal, to the fac- tory gates for work on 3 July, where they were assaulted by armed police and security staff. A week later local police removed the peacefully protesting union members from outside the factory gates, detaining 63, including a TUMTIS official. Inchcape Retrans headquarters in London refused

to meet with the ITF to discuss this case, stating that it was a matter for the local management in Turkey. The site supervisors, however, refused to meet with Mr Marges. He explains what happened when he attempted such a meeting. "At the entrance I was confronted by six or seven

security personnel who blocked my way, implying I was trying to enter without permission. Within sec- onds three military people with rifles came running from the direction of the office building and joined the security guards. I was not permitted to take pho- tographs. My first request for permission to enter was refused without explanation. After several attempts the security personnel agreed to try and arrange contact by phone with management but this was finally refused." Kees followed this up with a visit to the Governor

of Izmit, where the factory is situated. After stating that the workers broke Turkish laws by gathering at the factory gates, the Governor accepted that TUMTIS were the official representatives of the workers and had fulfilled requirements for official recognition and that he would act as mediator in the dispute. Marges found out later that following his visit to the Governor's offices five more workers were arrested. The second worrying case which the ITF was inves-

tigating was that of the reported unwarranted vio- lence used against warehouse workers in Izmir after the breakdown of negotiations with the employers' organisation on collective agreement application in July 1995. This again involved the TUMTIS union,

whose members were carrying out their jobs on 6 July when the premises were surrounded by 300 police with armed vehicles in a show of intimida- tion. Three weeks later police attacked the workers at the site using tanks, truncheons and rifle butts, wounding 40 TUMTIS members, three very serious- ly. The union members were then dismissed and replaced by contract labour. Kees reports that the dispute springs from the

union's relations with the employers organisation and its members, who, it is alleged, are linked to the right wing MHP party. He says it is this which led to the dismissals and confrontation and forced the employers to backtrack on their two year old collec- tive agreement on working conditions. Some of those workers who were arrested during the dispute told Kees of beatings and ill-treatment by the police whilst in custody. These two instances are not, of course, isolated

cases. Turkey is guilty of failing to deal with the unacceptable levels of violations of trade union rights taking place there, and on most occasions these acts are carried out by the Turkish authorities themselves. In the past twelve months IUR has reported on a number of examples of attacks on trade unionists. For example, both ICTUR and the ITF took up the casé of Atilay Aycin, the President of the civil aviation workers union HAVA-IS, when he was charged and imprisoned under the notorious Article 8 of the anti-terrorist laws, at the time when his members were taking industrial action. Other cases highlighted in previous issues of IUR include that of Osman Kundes, president of the Municipality Workers Union branch in Batman, southeast Turkey, who was "disappeared", and the detention of trade union representative Aheste Akbilek, who was being held with no formal charge against her at the infamous Ankara Security Headquarters, site of many reported beatings and instances of torture. These cases are all taking place against a back-

ground of increasing co-operation and planned cus- toms and trade agreements between Turkey and the European Union - all of which are under threat as a result of Turkey's appalling human rights record. An agreement between the European Union and

Turkey on finalising the customs union - the only agreement of its kind between the EU and a third country - was reached in March 1995. This was then confirmed at the Cannes European Council meeting in June which called for the assent of the European Parliament, which it needs if the agreement is to be approved. The Parliament's position, however, is to deny ratification of the agreement until concerns

INTERNATIONAL IXXllOlt lights Volume 3 Issue 1 1996 Page 22

This content downloaded from 193.105.154.127 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:03:48 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

over human rights and democracy in Turkey are answered. This has forced the European Commission to strengthen the agreement by adopt- ing a proposal for a regulation which "promotes knowledge and practice of human rights obser- vance", including awareness of the need to involve trade unions in the development process. The Turkish Prime Minister Tansu Ciller has stated

that Turkey is committed to improving its human rights record and is prepared to amend the Constitution and anti-terrorism legislation. Additionally some minor success was achieved recently when a very small number of political pris- oners were released. Until recently however, the majority group in the

Parliament were still not convinced. Back in November 1995 Carlos Carnero, rapporteur to the European Parliament's foreign affairs commitee said that "half measures were positive but insufficient", while Claudia Roth of the German Greens, one of the prime opponents of the agreement, said post- poning the decision to give Turkey more time to improve its record could have been possible. Nonetheless, even with these reservations, the Parliament did in fact ratify the agreement a month later with the proviso that the legislation would have to be complemented with an improvement in Turkey's human rights record. It is still not clear whther the agreement will be scrapped if there is seen to be no change on the human rights front. The ITF are also still not convinced by Turkey's

stated commitment to improving trade union rights. They point to the reforms which were approved by the Turkish parliament in July 1995 - reforms which may allow trade unions to participate in the political process and for non-binding collec- tive negotiations for state employees, but still out- laws strikes for public employees and keeps in place severe limitations on freedom of speech and the right to strike for all workers. In the two cases the ITF investigated, employers

refused to hold negotiations with a trade union offi- cial. The state collaborated with the employers, per- mitting them to use force and intimidation against the workforce by the police as well as failing to stop attacks on workers by hired company security per- sonnel. This, the ITF argue, shows a grave discrep- ancy between European labour relations and Turkish labour relations - discrepancies which need to be addressed. The ITF organised a follow-up mission to Turkey

which included the ICFTU General Secretary Bill Jordan in its delegation. They are also calling on Members of the European Parliament to block the existing trade and customs agreements until such time as Turkey shows a dramatic improvement in trade union rights and approves effective amend- ments to repressive legislation such as Article 8 of the anti terrorist laws. With the dust yet to settle on the outcome of the

recent Turkish general election and a new govern- ment (which will have to be another coalition) yet to be formed, it seems likely that Tansu Ciller will still be Turkish prime minister. What is more uncertain is the likliehood of any

immediate improvment in the trade union rights situation in the country. We shall have to wait a while yet before finding out just how serious the Turkish authorities really are about addressing the concerns raised by the international trade union movement about Turkey's labour relations record and on the need to guarantee fundamental free- doms for Turkish trade unions. Thanks to the ITF for the information in this article

USA Ö LEGAL REPORT SOLIDARITY

Police

back

bosses

Warehouse workers belonging to the TUMTIS Motorised Vehicle Workers Union in Izmir Turkey have called for support in a battle with their employers who are backed by police vio- lence. Four workers have suffered physical attack in the third attack in one week. Sabri Topcu, who

leads the union, writes "the employers are well aware of mutually negotiated agreements but in order to dere- cognise the union they are trying to replace regular staff with uninsured and illegal employees. This is a crime. The police should take action against the employers rather than attacking and insulting our members. ■ Information 00212 588 26 20 fax

Legal win

US UNIONS have won an important legal precedent to protect workplace organisation. The US Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that a worker may be an "employee" protected by the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, even if the worker is paid by a union at the same time to organize other work- ers. The decision reversed a local Minnesota ruling and supports a National Labor Relations Board interpretation of the federal law. The unanimous deci-

sion strengthens the NLRB's authority to interpret the law. "We must specifically decide whether the board may lawfully interpret this (Federal Act) language to include company workers who are also paid union organizers," Justice Stephen Breyer

said "We put the ques- tion in terms of the board's lawful authority because this (Supreme) Court's decisions recog- nize that the board often possesses a degree of legal leeway when it interprets its governing statute" "Particularly where

Congress likely intend- ed an understanding of labor relations to guide the National Labor Relations Act's applica- tion" he said Breyer concludes that

"a broad, literal reading of the statute," support- ing the NLRB's authori- ty, is consistent with past Supreme Court decisions. In the case out of Minnesota, a fed- eral appeals court had ruled that such union employees - planted in non-union workplaces so they can have freer

access to the other workers, a labor tactic known as "salting" - are not covered by the National Labor Relations Act. The NLRA forbids firing an employee for union activity. The case stems from a 1989 bid by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers to boost membership dur- ing a large expansion at an International Falls, Minnesota paper plant. One union member

gained work with Town & Country Electric Inc., a contractor based in Appleton, Wisconsin, but was fired three days later for inciting "disharmony," accord- ing to the company. In his application with the contractor through a temporary employment agency, the worker stat- ed he was an IBEW member. The NLRB sided with

the union. They appealed lower court decisions that were made against the union because it had paid its member a stipend for his organizing activities. Town & Country con-

tended the union work- er was "a servant of two masters" in direct con- flict with each other. The electrician received about $1,100 from the union. The 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the compa- ny and said that "when a union official applied for a position only to further the union's interest, we believe that an inherent conflict of interest exists." The Supreme Court decision vacates the appellate court ruling and sends the case back for a rehearing.

Volume 3 Issue 1 1996 Page 23 INTERNATIONAL Union rights

This content downloaded from 193.105.154.127 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:03:48 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions