Güvencesiz Çalışmaya Karşı Sendika Özgürlüğü Güvencesini Geliştirme İhtiyacı: 6356 Sayılı Kanun’un 25. Maddesinin Yeniden Düzenlenmesi Üzerine Öneriler
Naim Göktaş, Orhan Ertuğrul OnurNeo-liberal dönüşüm süreciyle birlikte çalışma ilişkilerinde güvencesizlik norm hâline gelmiştir. Bu dönemde güvencesizliğe yol açan standart-dışı istihdam biçimleri ülkelerin hukuk sistemlerinde yerini almıştır. Türkiye’de de 4857 sayılı İş Kanunu ile esnek çalışma türlerinin önü açılmış ve güvencesiz çalışmaya hukuki dayanak sağlanmıştır. Güvencesizliğin yaygınlaşmasıyla birlikte işçilerin işverenler karşısındaki gücü zayıflamış ve sendikaların örgütlenme koşulları daralmıştır. Sendikalar güç kaybettikçe işçiler eğreti koşullarda çalışmaya daha fazla mecbur olmuştur. Bu yüzden, temel uluslararası sözleşmelerde düzenlenmiş olan ve Türkiye’de anayasal bir hak niteliği bulunan sendika hakkına erişim, günümüz şartlarında daha önemli bir ihtiyaç hâline gelmiştir. Fakat 6356 sayılı Sendikalar ve Toplu İş Sözleşmesi Kanunu’nun (STİSK) 25. maddesinde düzenlenmiş olan sendika özgürlüğü güvencesi, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin (AİHM) Tek Gıda-İş Sendikası’nın başvurusu üzerine verdiği kararda belirtildiği üzere amacını karşılamaktan oldukça uzaktır. Bu çalışmada Türkiye’de sendika özgürlüğü güvencesinin geliştirilmesine katkı sağlamak amaçlanmıştır. Söz konusu amaç doğrultusunda doküman analizi yöntemi benimsenerek konuya ilişkin belgeler incelenmiş, maddenin sendika özgürlüğü güvencesini kısıtlayan yönleri açıklanmıştır. AİHM kararına da uyumlu olarak çalışmada iki ayrı öneri yapılmıştır. Kanun’un 24. maddesinde işyeri sendika temsilcileri için hüküm altına alınmış olan mutlak işe iade hakkının, 25. maddeye uyarlanması çalışmanın temel önerisidir. Bu düzeyde güvence sağlamasa da işverenin, iş sözleşmesi sendikal nedenle feshedilen işçiyi işe başlatmadığı durumda işçiye iş güvencesi tazminatı ödemesi gerekliliği çalışmanın ikincil önerisidir. Son yıllarda sendikalar giderek zayıflamakta ve işçiler güvencesiz koşullara artan oranda maruz kalmaktadır. Bu bağlamda bireysel sendika özgürlüğünü ve dolayısıyla kolektif sendika özgürlüğünü genişletmeye yönelik öneriler getirmesi bu çalışmanın önemini göstermektedir.
Need to Improve the Guarantee of Freedom of Association against Precarious Work: Suggestions on the Revision of Article 25 of Law No. 6356
Naim Göktaş, Orhan Ertuğrul OnurThe norm of precarity in labour relations is set off by the neoliberal transformation process, where non-standard forms of employment that foster precariousness take place in the legal systems of some countries. Turkish Law No. 4857 paves the way for flexible working hours and provides a legal basis for precarious work. In parallel with this pervading of precariousness, the labour power is weakened, and the conditions for union organising are contradicted. As unions lose power and labourer is more and more condemned to poor working conditions, the right to join a union, which is regulated in key international conventions and is a constitutional right in Türkiye, has become a more important need in today’s conditions. As stated in the ECtHR’s judgement on the application of Tek Gıda-İş Trade Union, Article 25 of Turkish Law No. 6356 on the freedom of union is far from fulfilling its purpose. In this context, this study contributes to improving the guarantee of freedom of union in Türkiye. Adopting document analysis as its methodology and explaining the aspects of the article in question that constrict the freedom of union, this study suggests two separate standpoints in line with the ECtHR’s judgement. The main suggestion of this study is to adapt the right to absolute reinstatement provided for workplace union representatives in Article 24 of Law No. 6356 to Article 25 of the same law. Although it does not provide this level of security, the secondary recommendation of this study is that employers should pay job security compensation to employees if the employer does not reinstate an employee whose employment contract has been terminated for union reasons. As trade unions have become weaker in recent years and workers face more precarious situations, the importance of this study lies in the fact that it makes suggestions for expanding individual freedom of unions and thus collective freedom of unions.
Neoliberal policies have created major socioeconomic transformations. The norm of precarity in labour relations is set off by the neoliberal transformation process. Accordingly, during this period, legislation on working life was also shaped in line with the needs of capital. Non-standard forms of employment that foster precarity have rapidly taken their place in the legal systems of states. In Türkiye, for example, Turkish Labour Law No. 4857 provides a legal basis for precarious work and regulates the types of contracts and practises that give way to flexible work, such as part-time work, fixed-term work, temporary work, on-call work and equalisation of working hours. The construction of the precariousness law weakened the power of labour against capital, thus the conditions for unions to organise narrowed. In Türkiye, 15% of workers are unionised. Moreover, the rate of workers covered by collective bargaining agreements is approximately 8%, which drops to a very low level of 5% in the private sector. The gradual loss of trade union power is condemning workers to poor working conditions. For the realisation of decent working conditions, freedom of unionisation must be effectively guaranteed.
While freedom of unionisation is a fundamental right with a universal dimension regulated in the most fundamental international conventions, it is also a constitutional right in Turkey, where Law No. 6356 on Trade Unions and Collective Bargaining Agreements regulates the guarantee of freedom of unionisation. Article 25 of Law No. 6356 stipulates that an employer cannot discriminate on trade union grounds in recruitment, continuation of the employment relationship, or termination of employment, and that if an employer acts against the law, the employee who is subjected to trade union discrimination will be entitled to trade union compensation in the amount of at least one year’s wages. In addition, it is also stated in the article that an employee whose contract is terminated for union reasons may file a lawsuit for reinstatement in accordance with the provisions of job security and that an employee whose contract is finalised by the court to have been terminated for union reasons shall be entitled to a maximum of four months of idle time wages, provided that he/ she applies for reinstatement, together with union compensation. In the same article, it is emphasised that in the event that an employer does not reinstate an employee, no job insecurity compensation can be awarded, and no application to the job is required for trade union indemnity.
The ECtHR delivered an important judgement on the inadequacy of the guarantee of freedom of union in Türkiye upon the application of Tek Gıda-İş Trade Union in 2017. According to a decision examining Tek Gıda-İş’s organising process at the TUKAŞ Gıda enterprise, the failure to reinstate dismissed workers or to pay deterrent compensation for union-busting behaviour by the employer discouraged workers from joining the union. Thus, the union failed to reach the numerical majority required to conclude a collective bargaining agreement. The judgement also found that lengthy court proceedings were effective in the process of unionisation. For all these reasons, the ECtHR concluded that Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights was violated.
As emphasised in the ECtHR judgement, Article 25 of Law No. 6356 does not guarantee individual freedom of union. There are two problematic aspects to the current regulation. The first is that it is at the employer’s discretion whether or not to reinstate an employee whose dismissal for union reasons is finalised by the court. Another problematic aspect of Article 25 of the Law is that an employer is not obliged to pay a job security compensation to an employee who applies for re-employment. The first step to amend the article is to make the right to reinstatement absolute for an employee whose contract was terminated on union grounds. The protection of workplace union representatives as regulated by Article 24 of the Law can serve as an example in this regard. If the rights regulated for the security of workplace union representatives are adapted to Article 25, which regulates the guarantee of freedom of association, the problem of the lack of an absolute right to reinstatement for employees dismissed for union reasons, which is also criticised in the ECtHR judgement, can be radically eliminated. Although it does not provide as much assurance as this proposal, which guarantees termination on union grounds, it can be presented as a secondary proposal in which the employer should pay job security compensation to the employee if the employee is not reinstated. In order for this to be realised, it would be sufficient to remove the sentence “However, in the event that the employee is not reinstated, the compensation specified in the first paragraph of Article 21 of Law No. 4857 shall not be awarded” in paragraph 5 of Article 25 from the law. This amendment may also be a relative solution to the problem of setting compensation at a lower amount without considering factors such as the economic power of the employers and the low wages of the workers, which are also criticised in the ECtHR judgement.
