EXTENDED SUMMARY

Regarding trade union law, there are two types of union executives: professional and non-professional. Those who perform executive duties by leaving their workplace are called professional officials, and those who continue to work at their workplace while carrying out executive duties are referred to as non-professional officials. This distinction is necessary to determine which type of protection the union trade official is entitled to. This is because Law numbered 6356 provides a dual system of protection for union officials. Both concepts are based on the definition of “union official” as stated in the Law. Accordingly, a non-professional official refers to members of the board of executives who continue to work at the workplace. Members of other organs such as the board of auditors, disciplinary board, or other optional organs who continue to work at the workplace do not qualify as non-professional officials and are not entitled to legal protection.

The legislator regulates the protection of professional union officials under Article 23 of Law numbered 6356, while the protection of non-professional union officials is addressed in Article 24 of the same code. Despite the legal regulation concerning the protection of non-professional union officials, there are still controversial issues. In the Constitutional Court decision examined in this study, it was discussed whether a substitute member of the union’s executive board, who continued working at the workplace and whose employment contract was terminated by the employer, could benefit from the protection granted to workplace union representatives, especially in the context of whether the trade union was unauthorized at the workplace. As indicated in the ruling, the Supreme Court has not yet established consistent case law regarding this subject, and decisions support both views. Based on the Constitutional Court’s assessment, this study discusses whether a union official from a non-authorized union who continues working at the workplace may benefit from the protection under Article 24 and whether being a substitute member affects the right to such protection.

The first issue discussed considering the Constitutional Court decision is whether substitute members of a union’s executive board can benefit from the protection granted to union officials who continue to work at the workplace. The Court stated that different chambers of the Supreme Court have adopted the view that substitute executive board members may also benefit from this protection. Since the Law does not make a distinction, substitute executive board members should be considered within the scope of the protection provided under Article 24.

The second major issue concerns whether an employee who acts as a non-professional union official in a union that is not authorized at the workplace can benefit from the protection related to workplace union representatives as stipulated in Article 24. The principle that only an authorized union may exercise this authority is stipulated in Article 27 of the Code, and this provision is intended solely to determine the authority to appoint a trade union representative, independently of the protection under Article 24. However, there is no such limitation regarding being elected as a union official. Accepting that only the union official of the authorized union at the workplace can benefit from this legal protection would mean excluding officials of unauthorized unions, resulting in only one union’s officials being eligible for protection. Yet, there is no difference between the protection needs and the risks faced by union officials of the authorized union and those of other unions who continue to work at the workplace.