Constitutional Court justifies the worker who took measures against the strike ban

The Constitutional Court (AYM) determined that the termination of the employment contract of a worker who participated in the strike action due to the government’s postponement of the union’s decision to go on strike constitutes a violation of rights.

The lawsuit filed by a member of the United Metal İş union, which participated in the slowdown action against the postponement of the strike, was unanimously accepted.

DISMISSED FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE BUSINESS SLOW ACTION

The strike, which was intended to take place as a result of the failure of the collective bargaining agreement negotiations between a metallurgical workplace and the union in January 2015, could not take place due to the government’s decision of ‘ postpone the strike.

Following the postponement decision, workers at the workplace performed a work slowdown that lasted 20-25 minutes a day. After this incident, the workplace laid off 30 workers without compensation. Although the Labor Court decided to return to work, it rejected the union’s claim for compensation. Although the employer appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, the higher court found the termination of the employment contract justified.

COMPENSATION WILL BE PAID

The worker in question filed an individual claim with the Constitutional Court following the decision of the Supreme Court. The Constitutional Court decided that the worker’s right to organize was violated and ordered compensation. In the court’s decision, which states that trade union rights were violated, it ordered compensation of TL 18,000 and decided to send the case back to the labor court.

Recalling that it had previously ruled that the right to unionize was violated in the postponement of the United Metal Workers’ strike decision, AYM asserted that the local court failed to carry out an effective judicial review required by trade union law.

‘INTERVENTION WITH UNION LAW’

The decision included the following statements:

“According to the first paragraph of article 54 of the Constitution, workers have the right to strike in case of disagreement during the negotiations of the collective agreement. Therefore, the right to strike is one of the most powerful means of labor struggle that allows workers to express their economic and social demands.

In this context, it is established in the fourth paragraph of article 54 of the Constitution that the situations in which the strike may be postponed and the workplaces will be regulated by law. Taking into account the importance of the constitutionally guaranteed right to strike, the compelling reason limiting the right must be clearly and convincingly stated. Otherwise, the exercise of the right to strike and collective bargaining, which is a constitutional right, is meaningless.

‘TOLERANCE SHOULD BE SHOWN’

In this sense, short-term protest actions, which are the use of a democratic right, must be tolerated against practices that affect the economic, social and labor conditions of workers.

In the complaint examined, the Court of Cassation stated that the applicant committed an illegal act solely because of the existence of the decision to postpone the strike and his employment contract was terminated for valid cause; No further evaluation was done.

Considering that the Constitutional Court concluded that the right to organize was violated with respect to the decision to postpone the strike, the subject of the lawsuit, and that the action in which the appellant participated was ephemeral and peaceful, with the aim of expressing the conflicts regarding the CLA, the aforementioned action must be evaluated in the field of trade union law.

Within the scope of all these explanations, it was concluded that the employer’s intervention in the trade union rights of the plaintiff in the specific claim would have a deterrent effect on the exercise of trade union rights by him and others, while the State would not be able to fulfill its obligations. positive due to the lack of effective judicial control required by the constitutional law in question by the courts of first instance.

With the justification explained, it must be decided that the trade union right, which is guaranteed in article 51 of the Constitution, has been violated”.