CHAPTER 21

LABOR RELATIONS AND ORGANIZATION

Contemporary labor legislation and industrial relations in Turkey retain many elements from the time when an employer occupied a position of great authority with respect to his workers. Paternal in nature, this authority included almost complete power to establish conditions of employment, performance standards and wages. In contrast the worker was very dependent upon the employer, looking to him for benefits more as a matter of favor than right. In some cases the relationship was based on mutual loyalty, respect, and affection; in others it produced friction and animosity. In all instances, however, tradition assigned initiative to the employer; the employee acting as an individual rather than as a member of an organized group, accepted this passive position.

With the growth of modern enterprise and newer forms of labor relations the state assumed this role of paternal authority formerly held by private employers. The Kemalist government developed a body of labor legislation which, formally at least, determined the nature of employer-employee relationships and in its own government-owned enterprises it attempted to demonstrate the best features of paternalistic labor relations. The state granted legal status to labor unions shortly after World War II; however, the act that did so was not very far-reaching because the government still maintained control over labor activities, workers were prohibited from striking, and unions were kept under state surveillance. The dominant tendency among workers was to rely on government intervention to settle industrial disputes. Since the Revolution of 1960 industrial as well as political democracy has become a declared goal of the government. The most tangible evidence of this new policy has been the liberalization of official policy toward strikes and collective agreements. The attitude of workers toward employers has also been changing. Industrial growth, mechanization of agriculture, urbanization, population increases and the spread of Western ideas are causing many workers, especially the young labor leaders, to question the relevance of the paternalistic pattern. Furthermore, a class consciousness is emerging among the workers, and the labor unions are becoming aware of their potential as pressure groups.

Union leaders and the rank and file, while still only a small fraction of the total labor force, are fast learning about labor organization, labor economics and collective bargaining. Employers, for their part, while they fear the growing labor movement as a challenge to their authority, have begun to soften their attitudes somewhat and to work toward improved labor-management relations. Thus while paternalism has left a strong imprint on present-day relations between employers and employees, recent developments suggest that this pattern is undergoing transformation.

Official policy now encourages the formation of democratic institutions patterned after the Western world, where workers' labor unions and collective agreements between employers and employees are held to be indispensable rights. Within this newer framework the prospects for mutual recognition, understanding, and cooperation among the concerned parties-workers and their leaders, employers, and the government-are greatly enhanced.

According to the last official census in 1965, over 70 percent of the working population is engaged in agricultural pursuits. Many of these are unpaid family workers or owners of small plots, while others are migrant farm hands. They do not readily identify their own form of work as one in which organization and collective action would be appropriate. Furthermore they are in the main dispersed and not easily drawn together in numbers that would favor collective action. Only about 10 percent of the total active population is employed in industrial establishments, and probably no more than half of these persons are in workplaces large enough to allow labor to organize under the present legislative arrangements.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Under the Ottoman rulers a system of craft guilds provided the mechanism through which the workers were protected. In the middle of the 19th century, however, the adoption of a civil code put a formal end to the guilds, leaving the workers without any kind of representative occupational organization (see ch. 13, The Governmental System). A few organizations were established in the coal fields of Zonguldak, among the tobacco workers of Izmir and Istanbul, and among the dock workers in the principal ports, but these were exceptions. The organizations outlasted the Young Turk movement which encouraged them but disappeared under the Kemalist prohibition against associations.

With the establishment of the Republic in 1923 a more active interest in labor legislation began to emerge. The new regime, which was bent on carrying out a program of industrialization,

recognized the necessity of enacting certain economic and social measures if successful industrial expansion was to be achieved. Thus during the 1920's and early 1930's labor legislation was encouraged. While these initial measures were applicable only to a very limited number of occupational groups, they served as a prelude to the country's first comprehensive piece of labor legislation -the Basic Labor Code, which passed in 1936.

The Basic Labor Code, with several amendments, remains a major legal instrument. As originally enacted, it applied only to manual workers in enterprises with 10 or more employees, engaged in mining, manufacturing, construction, operation of public utilities, communications, transportation, shipbuilding, freight-handling, and printing. This coverage was later extended to apply to workers in establishments of four or more employees in cities with populations over 50,000.

The Kemalist leadership did not, however, consider it necessary to incorporate into the Basic Labor Code provisions for the formation of independent unions. Instead a system of worker representation was built around shop stewards elected by the workers in each plant with two representatives authorized for up to 50 workers, and five or more for more than 1,000 workers. The code forbade strikes and lockouts and established machinery for settling labor disputes either through conciliation by a government mediator, or if conciliation could not be accomplished, through arbitration by a board under the Department (later the Ministry) of Labor.

Other provisions of the Basic Code established standards for employment contracts, working conditions, and industrial safety. An employment service and social insurance system were established, government supervision and inspection of industrial plants were provided for, and penalties for violations of the Code were specified. By subsequent amendments sickness and maternity insurance for Labor Code eligibles were provided for. Laws enacted in 1950 and 1951 prohibited wage differentials based on sex, and heavy or hazardous work for women and children. Other legislation of the 1950's established procedures on mass dismissal, and required pay for rest days and holidays.

A subsequent enactment, the Association Act of 1938, prohibited the establishment of labor-based organizations. This law was not specifically directed against the labor movement but was aimed at preventing the development of organized groups with competing interests. Labor unions were held to be class organizations and were thus illegal under the terms of the act.

The adoption of the multi-party system not only affected political organization within the country but led to a broadening of the

government's views concerning other kinds of organization. In 1947 the legislature passed the Trade Unions Act, which specifically authorized the formation of workers' trade unions and collective bargaining activities. Voluntary unionism was stressed and unions were allowed to establish themselves without having to obtain prior permission from the administrative authorities. Although only those workers employed in activities specified in the Basic Labor Code could organize, employees of governmentowned corporations and enterprises were included. White-collar workers (except for journalists) and those employed in small businesses were excluded, as were regular civil servants.

Some clauses of the 1947 Act served to restrict union activity. Extensive authority over the unions was placed in the hands of the government. The state was allowed to suspend the activities of the unions for various offenses, including the use of union funds for unauthorized purposes, engaging in political activities, and participating in or encouraging strikes. Prior government approval was required for affiliation of the trade unions with international organizations. In addition all union meetings had to be announced in advance to the governmental authorities who could conduct inspections at any time.

One of the most significant features of the Act of 1947 was that it continued to restrict strikes. Moreover, it did not compel the employers to recognize any union or to bargain collectively. If more than one union existed in a plant, there were no provisions for selecting a bargaining agent among them. Furthermore, the relationship in a particular plant between a union formed under the provisions of the 1947 act and the shop stewards elected by the workers in accordance with the earlier Basic Labor Code was unclear. Thus while the workers had been granted the right to organize and to enter into bargaining agreements with employers, the state did not provide the legal implements through which labor could enforce its demands.

In the absence of the right to strike and any legal requirements on the employers to bargain collectively, the unions had very little power. They could exert pressure only indirectly through the government or public opinion or, especially, through the support of political leaders. Nevertheless, union membership grew.

The military coup of 1960 and subsequent developments during the mid-1960's had a substantial impact on the trade union movement. Incorporated into the 1961 Constitution were many progressive social measures, including provisions which affirmed the right of employers and employees to establish unions and federations without previous permission from the government. Workers were