Extended Summary

The freedom to conclude collective agreements is secured by numerous international legal instruments. While there are similar fundamental regulations regarding the collective bargaining process in EU member states, detailed regulations on the subject vary among member states.
As we have tried to outline, there is no direct framework at the European Union level for determining the authority of parties in the collective bargaining phase. Each country has distinct traditions and approaches to collective labor law. For this reason, the norms adopted by the European Union in individual labor law are much broader than those in collective labor law.
At the European Union level, no changes are expected in the near future regarding the determination of the authority of parties in the collective bargaining process. The main reason behind this is that, while the rights derived from freedom of association and the right to form coalitions are secured, the norms of collective labor law still differ significantly among member states.
The rules regarding collective bargaining authority are regulated by Law No. 6356, which is currently in force in our country. These regulations are highly detailed. Despite these detailed provisions, significant problems are observed in practice. These issues lead to the prolongation of the collective bargaining process. The extension of the process, in turn, results in workers experiencing grievances. Addressing these negative consequences is among the primary duties of the legislator.
In the context of comparative law, the Federal Republic of Germany holds particular importance in labor and social security law. Accordingly, this study examines in detail the regulations concerning collective agreement authority in Germany.
In Germany, collective agreements have been regulated by the Collective Agreement Act, which was adopted in 1949 and remains in force today. A key feature of this act is that it contains highly general provisions.
The German legislature has not directly regulated the conditions for the authority to conclude collective agreements. However, the concept of collective bargaining authority has become well established. The high courts have laid out several criteria regarding collective bargaining authority. These criteria determine the parties authorized to conclude collective agreements.
It can be stated that there is no problem regarding authority in Germany and that the system is well established. The primary reason behind this is that, apart from legal regulations, the parties sitting at the bargaining table have accepted each other and, to put it bluntly, do not resort to the “authority games” observed in some other countries. Although it is required that parties be authorized to conclude collective agreements, the legislature has not explicitly defined this framework; instead, over the years, judicial rulings have shaped the criteria that the parties must meet in this regard.
Compared to our country, the German legislature has not confined the parties within a highly detailed collective agreement law. Instead, it has granted broad decision-making autonomy in the context of collective bargaining freedom. In this regard, is it not time for our country to also grant the parties a freer space? Should we not stop continuously citing past negative examples to restrict unionism and instead open the path for it? The time to enable free unionism has long since arrived.
The other country examined in this study is Austria. At first glance, it might seem that the Austrian and German systems are identical. However, Austria presents a very different model regarding authority. In Austria, the right to organize is constitutionally guaranteed. Unlike in Germany, there is no trade union law in effect. Additionally, Austria does not have a collective agreement law. Instead, the fundamental norms of collective bargaining are regulated by the 1973 Labor Organization Act.
One notable feature of the Austrian model is that the legislature has not granted the right to collective bargaining to employers who are not members of an organization. In other words, only worker and employer organizations are authorized in collective bargaining.
In Austria, the regulations concerning collective bargaining authority are defined by law. The legislature specifies which organizations are authorized. These organizations must apply to the Federal Conciliation Office, the competent authority, to obtain bargaining authority.
In Austria, as in Germany, the authority to conclude collective agreements is not a subject of debate. Within a well-established system, the parties negotiate freely on behalf of their members without any issues.
The examples of these two European Union member states clearly demonstrate that, contrary to common belief, their systems are significantly different, each possessing unique characteristics. To fully understand these characteristics, they must be evaluated as a whole within a historical developmental process, considering the cause-and-effect relationship. This approach is essential for making accurate inferences for our own country. After all, when you try to drink Viennese coffee in Turkey, it does not taste the same.