Extended Summary

In Türkiye, public sector unionism is generally discussed in terms of the following issues: the relationship between trade unions and politics; restrictions on public sector employees’ trade union rights; the absence of strike rights for public servants; payment of collective bargaining bonuses to public servants; the unequal structure of the Public Employee Arbitration Board; the fact that only the most representative trade unions and the confederation have a say in the collective agreement process; and other criticisms regarding the collective agreement process. It is also worth noting that these discussions tend to be of primary interest to scholars studying labour economics. Although public sector unionism is certainly related to the public personnel system, only a few studies have specifically examined the subject in relation to public personnel management.

The 2010 constitutional amendment led to a transition from a non-binding collective bargaining process to a binding collective agreement process. It would not be wrong to say that, since then, trade unions have increased their influence over the public personnel system. This study argues that the growing influence of trade unions in the Turkish public personnel system needs to be analyzed to understand its consequences. To achieve this, the study examined collective agreements concluded between 2012 and 2025. The findings of the study support the view that state-controlled public sector unionism is effective in Türkiye. Although the transition to collective agreement procedure has strengthened the binding nature of collective bargaining, the public authority continues to play a decisive role in determining the personal rights of public servants.

One of the study’s key findings is that collective agreements have failed to protect the financial rights of public servants. The study clearly shows that, except for in 2012 and 2016, the rates of salary increases agreed in collective agreements have consistently lagged behind the official inflation rate, with the disparity widening further during periods of high inflation. Furthermore, there is an ongoing debate about whether the inflation data announced by the Turkish Statistical Institute (TÜİK) accurately reflects the true level of inflation. One of the most significant reasons for this deficiency arising against public servants is said to be the unequal structure of the Public Servants Arbitration Board. Examination of collective agreements reveals that, in the event of a disagreement, the Board either accepted the Public Employer Committee’s offer or decided on a very small increase.

Another finding of the study is that the number of clauses in collective agreements has increased continuously, except for the fifth-term agreement. This is primarily because collective agreements cover the two years following their conclusion, meaning the clauses are repeated in each new period. Trade unions’ efforts to include as many issues as possible in the collective bargaining process, coupled with the failure to effectively implement social dialogue mechanisms (the Public Personnel Advisory Board and the Institutional Administrative Boards), also contribute to the expansion of the scope of collective agreements.

A notable feature of the clauses in collective agreements is that many of them would no longer be subject to bargaining following necessary amendments to the relevant legislation. Meanwhile, some matters have been addressed in collective agreements despite being regulated by legislation. On the other hand, it has been observed that collective agreements have also made decisions on matters that should be regulated exclusively by law. This calls for a fresh look at the role of collective agreements in the Turkish legal system.

Another legal issue is that the majority of provisions in collective agreements seek to improve the financial rights of public servants (e.g. compensation, additional payments and overtime pay) by implementing legislation differently. While this practice is regarded as an alternative way for trade unions to enhance their members’ financial rights, it is controversial from a legal standpoint. A further issue is that these provisions only apply to a specific category of public servants, thereby undermining the principle of unity, equivalence and equality in the public personnel system.

All these findings suggest that collective agreement provisions should be analyzed holistically, and that a study should be conducted on the relevant issues to be incorporated into legislation. This would prevent the same issues from being repeated in collective agreements and ensure that the matter is comprehensively addressed in a manner that encompasses all public employees. Such an approach would also reduce the number of items to be negotiated during the collective bargaining, enabling the one-month period to be used more effectively.

Last but not least, it is also important to note that any changes to the public personnel system should be made within the framework of system integrity, and that the decisions taken must not undermine the system’s fundamental principles.