Warning from the Competition Authority to companies that have signed a ‘no temptation’ agreement

The president of the Competition Board, Birol Küle, evaluated the decision to sanction some companies due to “gentlemen’s” agreements not to hire employees from each other.

The Board had imposed a fine of 151 million 148 thousand liras on 16 companies that made a gentleman’s agreement for the labor market.

“These agreements can also contribute to the factors that cause our country’s workforce to relocate abroad,” Küle said.

Pointing out that anti-competitive agreements impede workforce mobility, job productivity and wage determination at competitive levels, Küle asserted that the wages of employees who are deprived of advantageous alternative employment opportunities can be suppressed and their working conditions may be adversely affected.

‘QUALITY OF SERVICE MAY DECREASE’

Küle pointed out that this situation can have repercussions on the production of final goods and services, such as a decrease in quality.

Emphasizing that it matters to them not to be deprived of the opportunities offered by the free and competitive labor market, Küle continued his words as follows:

“Avoiding a job change for an employee who could be more productive at another employer may result in employees not being hired by a company that matches their skills. In the long term, these agreements can also contribute to the factors that cause the movement of labor from our country abroad. I can say that positive steps will be taken in this direction if employee mobility is not hindered, and that our trained staff will find employment opportunities in different sectors of our country.”

‘ALREADY, LABOR’S SHARE OF TOTAL INCOME IS DECREASING’

Küle said that concerns about the labor market have arisen in recent years, especially as labor’s share of total income has declined.

Noting that as an institution they have extensively researched the competitive problems they have identified in such markets, Küle said: “When we consider the negative effects of agreements such as wage fixing and employee seduction, we consider these agreements to be identical to ‘price fixing’. ‘ and ‘customer sharing’ in terms of their effects,” he said.

“In this context, we will continue to use the instruments of competition law in the most effective way in line with the goal of free and competitive labor markets,” Küle said.

‘THE EMPLOYEE CANNOT REACT TO THE DECREASE IN WAGES BY CHANGING JOB’

Expressing that the employer is the one who has a strong position in the employee-employer relationship, Küle said: “There are also studies that show that employees cannot show their reaction to the decrease in their wages by changing jobs. Therefore, as an Institution, we aim to intervene effectively in such violations that artificially reduce the well-being of our employees”.

Saying that the theme of his latest labor decision is “not to attract employees,” Küle said: “Here, too, employers agree not to employ each other’s employees. So, in this market, which we call labor market , where employees offer their work and employers demand work, employers stop competing, that is, providing better conditions to their employees, retaining them or hiring them.” He used the phrase.

‘TRADE SECRETS CAN BE PROTECTED’

Noting that the employer and employee can impose non-compete and similar obligations under certain conditions, according to the job requirements, Küle said: “In this way, it is possible to ensure the protection of know-how and trade secrets. . , or to avoid the loss of investments such as education”.

“On the other hand, employee tempt agreements are a type of agreement between employers that connects the transition of employees to the arbitrary practices of employers,” Küle said, adding: “It is possible that a company that invests in your employees get a return on these investments with opportunities within legal limits.”

Küle said: “In contrast, making anti-competitive agreements with other companies goes beyond the objective of obtaining a return on investment and has negative effects on both employees and society in general.”

‘OUR EXPERTS CAN GO TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR’

Noting that they do not prevent the transition of their experts, whom they have trained with great effort, to the private sector, Küle said: “We hope that this attitude, which we display as a public institution, will be adopted with the same sensitivity from both our global companies and nationals”. saying.

Pointing out that the US and EU no-seduction agreements are accepted among the agreements that clearly restrict competition, Küle said:

“The practices of the Competition Authority in the labor markets are in line with the practices of other authorities around the world. Likewise, in the labor decision, both the jurisprudence of the Board and practices around the world were taken into account.

It has been evaluated that the actions in the file are actions that have as their objective the distribution of labor inputs, have the nature of an agreement between competitors, therefore, they are within the scope of the definition of a cartel.

We hope that the decision we have made will further broaden awareness of HR competition and help remove artificial barriers that prevent employees from achieving better conditions in a way that preserves the innovative structure.”

WHAT COMPANY WAS FINED HOW MUCH?

On August 2, the Competition Board decided to impose a fine of 151 million 148 thousand liras on 16 companies for violating the competition law with gentlemen’s agreements for the labor market.

In this context, the list of companies declared party to anticompetitive employee tempting agreements was as follows:

* 4 million 834 thousand 124 liras to D-Market Elektronik Hizmetleri ve Ticaret AŞ,

* 5 million 319 thousand 292 liras to Vodafone Telekomünikasyon AŞ,

* 192 thousand 973 liras to Zeplin Software Systems and Information Technologies Inc.,

* 2 million 159 thousand 522 liras to Arvato Logistics Foreign Trade and E-Ticaret Hizmetleri AŞ,

* 517 thousand 883 liras to Çiçeksepeti Internet Services Inc.,

* 1 million 94 thousand 131 lira to Sosyo Plus Information Technologies Consulting Services Trade AŞ, 7 million 293 thousand 869 lira to TAB Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ,

* 1 million 218 thousand 89 liras to Vivense Teknoloji Hizmetleri ve Ticaret AŞ,

* 41 million 22 thousand 658 liras to Türk Telekomünikasyon AŞ,

* 20 thousand 827 liras to Zomato Internet Services Trade AŞ,

* 18 million 21 thousand 702 lire to Flo Magazacilik ve Pazarlama AS,

* 6 million 513 thousand 239 liras to Koçsistem Information and Communication Services Inc.,

* 59 million 590 thousand 457 liras to LC Waikiki Mağazacılık Hizmetleri Ticaret A.Ş.

21 COMPANIES WERE NOT SANCTIONED

The commitments for which it was decided not to impose an administrative sanction, for not having been declared in violation of the Law for the Defense of Competition in the framework of the allegations in the file, are the following:

“- 41 29 Media Internet Education and consulting Advertising Industry Foreign Trade Inc.

– Anadolu Restaurant Management Ltd. Sti.

– Doğuş Planet Information Services and Electronic Commerce Inc.

– Industry and Trade of Information Technology Software Etiya Inc.

– Google Advertising and Marketing Ltd. Sti.

– Grupanya Internet Services Communication Organization Promotion and Marketing Inc.

– Havas Worldwide Istanbul Communication Services Inc.

– It’s Gıda AS

– Logo Software Industry and Commerce Inc.

– Meal Box Food and Technology Inc.

– Migros Ticaret A.Ş.

– Mobven Technology Inc.

– Mynet Medya Yayıncılık International Electronic Information and Communication Services Inc.

– Net Consulting Education and Commerce Ltd. Sti.

– Noktacom Media Internet Services San. see tick AS

– NTV Radio and Television Broadcasting Inc.

– Pico Oyun Yazilim sees Pazarlama AS

– Pizza Restaurants Inc.

– By the owner Information Technology Marketing and Trade Inc.

–Valensas Technology Services Inc.

– Yeşil Vadi Tarım Gıda A.Ş.” (AA)