From the Taft-Hartley Act to Turkish Industrial Relations - Postponement of Legal Strikes : A Legal Borrowing Case

The Taft Hartley Act was unique because it curtailed the policy of free collective bargaining in the United States. According to the Taft-Hartley Act, the President can postpone a legal strike if it imperils national health or safety. Turkey has borrowed this practice which was harmonious with its paternalistic view in industrial relations in 1963 by the Collective Aggreements, Strikes and Lock-outs (CASL) Act No: 275. According to this Act, the Council of Ministers can postpone a legal strike if it imperils national health or national security. After the ninety days postponement period, if the dispute continues, the trade unions are free to continue the strike as in the United States. The authorities to postpone, the reasons for the postponement, the procedures in the postponement period, the effects of the postponement, even the durations of the postponement are almost the same in the United States and Turkey. After the military coup d'etat in 1980 in Turkey, the new constitution (1982) and the new CASL Act No. 2822 (1983) were put into effect. According to the new Act No. 2822, after the time limit fixed for the postponement (sixty days) if the parties have not been able to reach an aggreement, the Minister shall refer the dispute to Supreme Arbitration Board. This means that the dispute will be settled by compulsory arbitration and the strike will end. The ILO and the ICFTU have criticized Turkey for this application several times. It can be concluded that, the legal borrowing from the Taft-Hartley Act to Turkish Industrial Relations has two stages. The first stage occured with the CASL Act No. 275 and the practices of postponement were nearly identical to its roots in U.S. law. The second stage took place with the CASL Act No. 2822, which is still in effect. In this stage the legal borrowing case severed ties with its roots, for the name of the case remained the same but the situation differed