IKEA's Race to the Bottom in Turkey

1

IKEA’s Race to the Bottom in Turkey
- A Report on IKEA's Operations in Turkey -

Professor JOHN LOGAN

Director of Labor and Employment Studies
College of Business
San Francisco State University

Research Director Labor Center
University of California-Berkeley

2

Executive Summary

For the past two years, IKEA Turkey has run a campaign of intimidation,
interference and coercion in response to employees’ efforts to choose a union
at stores in Istanbul, Bursa, Izmir and Ankara. This campaign has involved
management personnel at all levels, from the CEO of IKEA Turkey to
individual store managers, team leaders and supervisors. Anti-union tactics
used by IKEA management include the following:

 •   Unlawful terminations of union activists, including the use of performance
     evaluations to drive activists out.

 •   Pressures and bribes to entice union activists to resign from their
     positions.

 •   Retaliation against union members in the form of poor evaluations, denial
     of pay raises and transfers to less desirable positions and departments

 •   Compulsory “captive audience” anti-union meetings conducted by store
     managers, human resource managers, or even by the CEO of IKEA
     Turkey.

 •   One-on-one meetings between store managers, HR managers or a labor
     relations consultant working for IKEA and individual union members.

 •   Exclusion of any pro-union voices from the workplace

 •   Anti-union comments discouraging employees from joining the union or
     persuading existing union members to resign their membership.

 •   Indoctrination of new employees against the union

The campaign is almost certainly unlawful under Turkish labor law and its
constitution. On every one the major union-related protections provided by
Turkish law – protections against discriminatory dismissal, protection against
discriminatory treatment, protection against unlawful coercion to resign from
the union or unlawful intimidation not to join the union – IKEA management
appears to have behaved unlawfully. Management’s aggressive anti-unionism

3

in Turkey also violates IKEA’s Code of Business Conduct, which states that it
respects workers’ right to form “organizations of their own choosing.” In
addition to violations of Turkish law and “IKEA values,” the anti-union tactics
violate leading international human rights standards on freedom of
association, including the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC), the core
conventions of the International Labor Organization (ILO), and the
Organization   of   Economic     Cooperation   and   Development’s    (OECD)
Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. These serious violations of workers’
fundamental rights cast serious doubt on IKEA’s voluntary commitments to
international labor standards.

4

Contents

Page

5      Introduction
9      Part One: Deterioration in Working Environment at IKEA Turkey:
       Work Intensification, Low Wages and Poor Health and Safety
       Conditions
11     Part Two: Driving Union Activists out of the Workplace
13     Part Three: Pressure to Resign from the Union
16     Part Four: Anti-Union Retaliation is Endemic at IKEA
19     Part Five: Captive meetings and Coercive Speech at IKEA
22     Part Six: Stifling Pro-Union Voices
23     Part Seven: Anti-Union Indoctrination Among IKEA’s Newest
       Employees
25     Part Eight: IKEA Values or Mapa Values?
26     Part Nine: IKEA’s Labor Record in Other Countries: A Tale of
       Two Systems
27     Part Ten: Turkish Law, “IKEA Values,” and International
       Standards
32     Conclusion: A Better Everyday Work Life for IKEA Employees

5

IKEA’s Race to the Bottom in Turkey

Introduction

Now a $20 billion per year company, IKEA is the world’s largest furniture
retailer, and one of the world’s most recognizable retail brands. Worldwide,
IKEA now operates in approximately 40 countries and has almost 100,000
employees. While the vast majority of these employees are based in Western
Europe, the company has a growing presence in Eastern Europe, Australia,
North America and Asia, especially in China and India. In recent years, IKEA
has expanded significantly its operations in Turkey. It opened its first Turkish
store in the country’s largest city, Istanbul, in 2005, and has opened four
additional big box stores since then. IKEA Turkey currently operates five
stores in Turkey, all of which are operated by the legally independent
franchisee, Mapa Mobilya: two in Istanbul – one on the European side of the
city (Bayrampasa) and one on the Asian side (Umraniye) -- and one each in
Ankara, Izmir and Bursa. The company opened its newest store in Ankara in
2011. IKEA Turkey has almost 2000 employees between the five stores, and
has plans to open 3 additional stores in Turkey over the next six years, adding
hundreds more employees.

In addition to having one of the best-known brand images in the world, IKEA, a
self-proclaimed “socially responsible” corporation, claims its corporate culture
embraces togetherness, respect, and humility. But in Turkey, it appears that
that respect does not extend to respect for international labor and human
rights standards on freedom of associaiton. For the past two years, IKEA’s
Turkish employees have been attempting to form a union in order to improve
working conditions, gain an independent voice, and win respect on the job. In
response, they have encountered an aggressive and at times unlawful anti-
union campaign. Labor rights violations at IKEA Turkey include the termination
of workers who are union activists, intense pressure on workers to resign from

6

the union, widespread retaliation against union members, “captive meetings”
where workers hear about management’s anti-union position while pro-union
voices are prohibited, and the indoctrination of new employees with anti-union
propaganda. In addition to potentially violating Turkish law and its constitution,
these violations of workers’ fundamental rights cast serious doubt on IKEA’s
voluntary commitments to international labor standards.

Varieties of Anti-Unionism at IKEA Turkey

Since the start of a union organizing campaign among its employees, IKEA
management in Turkey has repeatedly engaged in aggressive anti-union
tactics that are designed to prevent workers from forming a union of their own
choosing. Many of these tactics are now, regrettably, standard features of anti-
union campaigns in the private sector in Turkey. According to academic
studies, the overwhelming majority of Turkish companies engage in such
practices when faced with a union organizing campaign. And they do so with
good reason – these practices pay great dividends and any punishment
employers might face for violating the law is considered a small price for
                                                          1
preventing a union organizing campaign.                       One recent academic study
concludes that these employer anti-union tactics are the main obstacle to
employees forming unions in Turkey. During the past decade, private-sector
employers have “enhanced their union-busting techniques. The principal
reason behind the weakening of trade unions is the diverse anti-union
strategies deployed by Turkish employers.” 2 IKEA management has often
adopted anti-union tactics in a way that enables the company to deny direct
responsibility for potentially unlawful actions – for example, by paying union
activists to resign rather than sacking them and by using an outside
consultant, rather than IKEA managers, to interrogate workers about their
union membership.

1   Erdinc Iskur, Iskur Law Office, “A Brief on the Obstacles to Unionization in Turkey” (2012).
2   Aziz Celik, “Trade Unions and Deunionzation During Ten Years of AKP Rule.”

7

The following description of anti-union tactics at IKEA Turkey is based on
extensive interviews with multiple workers at all five stores. The interviews
were conducted between December 17-December 22, 2012 in Ankara, Izmir,
Bursa, and Istanbul. Workers interviewed included union members and non-
union workers. Some of the workers interviewed were long-time members and
activists, while others were new members who were not active in the union. All
of the interviewees were current employees, and ranged from those with
several years of service to those who had been hired earlier last year.

Employees at more than one IKEA store discussed each of the tactics
documented below; many times, almost every employee interviewed had first-
hand experience of the tactics or knew other workers who had experienced
these tactics. Whenever possible, other forms of evidence – sworn statements
to union officials, lists of workers wrongfully terminated and the status of their
court cases, lists of union and non-union workers who have resigned from the
union, as well as those who resigned and subsequently rejoined the union –
were used to verify workers’ accounts of events. In many cases, the accounts
are based on workers’ conservations with management; no written record of
the exchange exists but these accounts were compared with the interviews of
other workers in the same stores and with workers in other stores. In all cases,
the workers’ accounts of anti-union behavior were consistent with other forms
of evidence, and consistent with the stories of other workers. Thus, it seems
clear that the anti-union tactics are not simply isolated incidents at a single
store. Rather, they constitute part of a coordinated pattern of behavior –
involving management personnel at all levels -- at IKEA Turkey in response to
workers’ efforts to form a union.

At IKEA Turkey, management anti-union tactics have included the following:

  •   Alleged unlawful terminations of union activists, including the misuse of
      performance evaluations to drive activists out.

8

    •   Pressures and bribes to entice union activists to resign from their
        positions.

    •   Persistent and aggressive management pressure on employees to resign
        from the union, and bribes offered to employees to resign from the union.

    •   Management retaliation against union members in the form of poor
        evaluations, denial of pay raises and transfers to less desirable positions
        and departments

    •   Compulsory “captive audience” anti-union meetings conducted by store
        managers, human resource managers, or even by the CEO of IKEA
        Turkey.

    •   One-on-one meetings between store managers, HR managers or a labor
        relations consultant working for IKEA and individual union members.

    •   The exclusion of any pro-union voices from the workplace

    •   Indoctrination of new employees against the union

IKEA management appears to have behaved unlawfully on each of the major
union-related protections provided by Turkish law – protections against
discriminatory       dismissal,      protection      against      discriminatory        treatment,
protection against unlawful coercion to resign from the union or unlawful
intimidation not to join the union. Management has also violated multiple
international standards on freedom of association.3

3 In addition to the protections offered by national laws and its Constitution, Turkey has signed
and ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and ILO core
Conventions 87 and 98. Nurhan Sural, “Anti-Discrimination Rule and Policies in Turkey,”
Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal, 13: 01 (2009), p. 269; Kadriye Bakirei, “Unfair Dismissal
in Turkish Employment Law,” Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 16:2 (June 2004).

9

Part One: Deterioration in Working Environment at IKEA
Turkey: Work Intensification, Low Wages and Poor Health and
Safety Conditions

1. Work Intensification

IKEA management has accused Koop-Is of spreading “invalid statements
about our working environment.” However, many employees share the union’s
views on the deterioration of the working environment at IKEA. One of the
most common complaints, mentioned by workers at all five stores, concerns
the intensification of work: as workers have quit, management has not hired
sufficient numbers of new workers and thus the workload of the existing
employees has increased significantly. Management has replaced full-time
employees with part-time employees, even though many of the new hires
would like to work full-time. Some workers reported that the number of full-time
employees in their department has declined by as much as half during the two
past years, and all have experienced an increase in the number of part-time
employees at their stores.

2. Warehouse Work: Conditions are “Absolutely Terrible”

Understaffing and work intensification – which employees believe has harmed
the quality of customer service at IKEA Turkey -- has been especially serious
a problem for employees in the warehouse department, which can be
hazardous work involving heavy lifting. Warehouse employees at Bursa and
Istanbul described their working conditions as “absolutely terrible.” Several
workers reported that the weight of the boxes they are expected to lift has
increased substantially – from 18kg to as much as 30kg -- and that several
workers had suffered slipped discs or other back problems as a result of
carrying heavy weights. One Istanbul worker stated that his doctor had warned
him against carrying such heavy weights, but when he explained this to his

10

supervisor, he was told: “Many people on the outside would gladly take your
job. If you don’t want to do the work, you should resign.”

Other workers told similar stories. Warehouse workers are often asked to lift
boxes by themselves that should be lifted by two workers, and complain about
insufficient on-the-job health and safety training. Rather than hire new workers
to replace those who leave, management has increased the lengths of
workers’ shifts or decreases the time between their shifts. As a result,
warehouse workers often complete 10 or 11-hour nightshifts with short breaks
between shifts -- sometimes less than 8 hours -- and complain that they are
often denied overtime and holiday pay they are entitled to under law. Workers
also complained about working without heating in the winter -- when
temperatures often fall below freezing -- and of having to work extended hours
without a break to cover for co-workers who are absent, often in violation of
Turkish law. As a result of long hours and harsh conditions, many workers
have quit and turnover is extremely high in the warehouse department.

3. Low Wages and Health and Safety Problems

Workers complain that their wages are low and had failed to keep pace with
inflation, or even with increases in the legal minimum wage. Several years
ago, long-term workers state, average wages at IKEA were significantly higher
than the national minimum wage, but now are only slightly higher than the
minimum wage and well below a “living wage.” 4 Workers at several stores
reported that they had not been paid their winter heating allowance in a timely
manner and had been paid less than management had promised. Some
workers reported problems receiving legally mandated overtime and holiday
pay, and stated that only union members had experienced these problems.
Workers reported a variety of serious health a safety concerns: workers who

4 According to August 2012 research by the TURK-IS union confederation, the “poverty
threshold” for a family of four is 3,048 Turkish Lira per month.

11

operated folk-lift trucks without a proper driver’s license or sufficient training,
substandard safety equipment – such as protective footwear and gloves – and
injuries during restaurant and laundry work, including serious burns and cuts.
Many of the workers stated that this deterioration in working conditions was
their principal motivation for joining the union. Workers realize they can do
little to improve conditions individually -- they had raised workplace problems
with management but had been threatened for doing so -- but could only do so
by having a collective voice at work.

Part Two: Driving Union Activists out of the Workplace

1. Discriminatory Dismissals on the basis of union membership

Turkish law prohibits employers from dismissing workers on the basis of union
membership or for involvement in union activities. However, the penalties in
discriminatory dismissal cases are inadequate – often only a few months pay -
- and offer little deterrent against illegal activity. As a result, Turkish employers
fire union activists with virtual impunity, and unlawful terminations are
commonplace during organizing campaigns. 5 One scholar states that the
dismissal of union supporters “is a widespread practice” because the law fails
to   provide     “effective   protection…       against     layoffs   related     to   union
membership.”6

The campaign at IKEA Turkey is no exception. Management has allegedly
fired ten workers for union membership and activities – seven in Istanbul (four
at Umraniye and three at Bayrampasa) and three at Bursa. The labor courts
have ruled in five cases (four at Umraniye and one at Bayrampasa) that the
dismissals were unlawful, and have ordered the reinstatement of the
employees. Under Turkish law, however, IKEA has the option of reinstating
5 The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) reports that Turkey has more cases of
discriminatory dismissals than any other single country in Europe.
6 Aziz Celik, “Trade Unions and Deunionzation During Ten Years of AKP Rule.”

12

the workers or paying several months salary compensation, and when faced
with reinstatement orders, the overwhelming majority of Turkish employers
choose the latter option.7 Four of these five cases are currently pending before
the High Court. The remaining five cases (two at Bayrampasa and three at
Bursa) are still pending before the labor court, but union officials expect the
same outcome – i.e., that the court will rule that the terminations were unlawful
and order IKEA to reinstate the workers – in these cases.

2. Forcing or Bribing Activists to Quit their Jobs

Rather than fire union activists, IKEA management has adopted several more
subtle strategies to get rid of union activists. Management has offered
substantial non-salary payments to union activists -- up to 5,000 Turkish Lira --
if they agree to quit their position at the store. This has enabled management
to get rid of union activists without firing them and dealing with a reinstatement
case in the labor courts. Workers report that management has threatened
these activists with termination if they refuse to quit. Thus, union activists are
faced with a stark choice: they can quit and receive compensation plus an
additional cash payment, or get fired and risk getting nothing. Workers at all
five stores stated that they knew union activists who had been offered or had
received substantial cash payments to quit.                 At Izmir, one union member
reported that an activist had been offered money to quit but threatened with
termination if he refused. He resigned and used the money to start a café.
Istanbul workers reported that Serkan Harmancioglu, VP of human resources,
met with several activists to offer a generous financial payment activists if they
quit their jobs.

7Kadriye Bakirei, “Unfair Dismissal in Turkish Employment Law,” Employee Responsibilities and
Rights Journal, 16:2 (June 2004); Erdinc Iskur, Iskur Law Office, “A Brief on the Obstacles to
Unionization in Turkey” (2012).

13

3. Performance Evaluations Used to Drive Out Union Activists

If workers receive three consecutive poor performance evaluations – which
are conducted every six months -- they can be sacked. Management has
misused performance evaluations to threaten the jobs of union supporters.
One Bursa worker reported that his store manager threatened to use
evaluations to drive him out of IKEA. He stated: “I have the power to fire you.
Your performance is everything. You should consider this carefully. I can write
three negative evaluations, then fire you.” The worker also stated that at least
one fellow union activist resigned his position after he received two negative
evaluations and had been threatened with a third. Istanbul workers reported
that several of their fellow union activists had quit their jobs after receiving bad
evaluations that meant they were ineligible for promotion. The misuse of
evaluations by management to drive out activists is a common anti-union tactic
in Turkey. According to one senior labor official: “When they fire workers for
union activities, Turkish employers always use the justification of ‘poor
performance.’”8

Part Three: Pressure to Resign from the Union

Another commonly used anti-union tactics in private sector Turkish organizing
campaigns is for management to pressure employees, or to offer financial or
other incentives, to resign from the union. Resigning one’s union membership
in Turkey is both difficult and expensive -- it involves going to the notary and
paying a significant fee. Under Turkish law, management is prohibited from
pressuring or bribing workers to resign from the union.9 Anti-union pressure to
resign also violates international standards on freedom of association.

8   Interview with Faruk Buyukkucak, TURK-IS, September 12, 2012.
9Article 31 of the Unions Act states no one may be compelled into withdrawing from
union membership. Under Article 118/2 of the Criminal Code, the use of threat or force by
employers to obstruct union activities is punishable by one to three years of imprisonment.

14

1. In Public: No Pressure; In Private: Intense Pressure

In public, IKEA Turkey management accepts that the “Turkish Constitution,
Fundamental Human Rights, International and National Labor Legislation and
universal IKEA values” all prohibit pressuring workers to resign their union
membership. It denies that it has put unlawful pressure on workers to resign
from the union, and insists that any resignations are the result of the free
choice of employees. According to the workers interviewed, in contrast,
management has put enormous pressure on union members, telling them they
will be denied promotions or pay increases while they are members of the
union. Management personnel have offered financial and other incentives --
including more rapid promotions, transfers to more desirable positions or
promises of jobs for friends and relatives -- in order to get workers to resign
their membership of the union. They have also arranged or paid for workers’
transportation to the notary and provided cash for the notary fee. Workers at
all five stores reported that either they or their coworkers had been offered
non-salary cash payments of approximately 200 Turkish Lira in order to resign
from the union. In some cases, management has gone to great lengths to get
workers to resign from the union. Bursa workers report that management
drove one union activist approximately 250 KM to a notary in Istanbul in order
to get him to resign from the union that same day.

2. Rewards for Resignations

IKEA management has not only put pressure on workers to resign, it has also
promoted unqualified anti-union workers and even used “spies” in the
workplace to inform on union members. Several union members stated that
workers who are hostile to the union have been promoted to management
positions, even though they were clearly unqualified for those jobs. Rather

Nurhan Sural, “Anti-Discrimination Rule and Policies in Turkey,” Comparative Labor Law and Policy
Journal, 13: 01 (2009).

15

than receiving promotions based on their performance, ability, and
qualifications, workers have been promoted because of connections to
management or their hostility to the union. Management has allegedly offered
similar cash payments to non-union workers in return for information about
union activity within the workplace. Union members in Bursa and Istanbul
stated that anti-union workers had given their names to management in return
for financial benefit.

3. The Consequences of Not Resigning

As a result of this anti-union pressure, union members have been presented
with a clear choice: they can resign and receive a non-salary financial
payment, pay increase, transfer to a better position or other job-related benefit.
Or they can remain in the union and suffer retaliation in the form of bad
evaluations, worse assignments, and no pay increases. One Istanbul worker
described being threatened with dismissal for refusing to resign. After meting
with Serkan Harmancioglu, who tried unsuccessfully to get him to resign form
the union, the worker’s store manager told him: “Now, you are a marked
man. You do not have a future at IKEA. Management will dismiss you
without compensation.” In an attempt to pressure him to resign, the store
manager had made harassing phone calls to his family. IKEA management
denies that it has contacted workers at home to put pressure on them, but
several workers stated that this had happened to them or to their co-workers.

4. Some workers have resigned, but most have not.

As a result of this unlawful pressure, at least 91 IKEA workers have resigned
from Koop-Is, and one non-member has also “resigned” from the union. In
some cases workers resigned from the union but failed to receive the
promotions or cash incentives that management had promised them. Some
subsequently rejoined the union, as did some union activists who had come

16

under intense pressure to resign their membership. At the Umraniye-Istanbul
(Asian side) store, for example, 11 workers have resigned then subsequently
rejoined the union. The “resignation” of at least one non-member in Istanbul
also provides evidence of management coercion. Why else would a worker
who was not a union member go through the difficult and expensive process of
resigning from the union? Despite this intimidation and retaliation, most union
workers have refused to resign their Koop-Is membership.

Part Four: Anti-Union Retaliation is Endemic at IKEA

Under Turkish law, employers cannot subject union and non-union workers to
different forms of treatment. 10 Despite this clear legal prohibition, IKEA
workers at all five stores have suffered discrimination because of their union
membership. Union members have been given poor performance evaluations
with no justification; they have had work-related requests denied, while similar
requests have been granted to non-members; they have been transferred to
the least desirable jobs in the stores and to jobs that limit their contact with
non-union members; and they have been warned that they will not receive
promotions or other forms of on-the-job advancement while they are members
of the union.

1. Negative Performance Evaluations for Union Supporters

One of the most widely used forms of retaliation at IKEA stores is to give
negative job performance evaluations to union members. Poor performance
evaluations are a cause for significant concern: they can be used to deny
workers pay increases, “social benefits,” and promotions. Given that many
IKEA workers in Turkey earn little more than the national minimum wage, with

10Under Article 31 of the Unions Act, employers are prohibited from discriminating against
workers on the basis of union membership when workers are hired, during their employment
tenure, and when they are terminated from employment. Nurhan Sural, “Anti-Discrimination
Rule and Policies in Turkey,” Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal, 13: 01 (2009), p. 269.

17

monthly wages averaging around 850-1000 Turkish Lira per month, the
prospect of missing out on these financial incentives is a serious issue. And
the threat of negative evaluations has had a powerful impact on how new
workers view the union.

Most workers reported that they had received their first-ever poor performance
evaluation shortly after joining the union, but management provided no
legitimate justification for the poor evaluation. Prior to joining the union, the
employees had received high job performance evaluations and enjoyed good
relationships with their managers. One Istanbul worker reported that, before
joining Koop-Is, he had received consistently excellent evaluations and
considered his manager a close friend and mentor. As soon as he joined the
union, however, the store manager’s attitude towards him changed
dramatically: he was cold and distant and the worker started to receive bad
evaluations for no apparent reason – nothing had changed at work other than
the fact that he had joined Koop-Is.

Some workers accused managers of fabricating reasons to give them bad
evaluations. Istanbul union members reported they had been given workloads
that were impossible to complete in one shift. After they failed to finish their
appointed tasks, management would give them written warnings for laziness
or substandard work.      Workers who oppose the union, in contrast, have
received accelerated promotions. Workers at Istanbul and Bursa reported that
anti-union employees received promotions to supervisory or management
positions, even though they did not possess college degrees or other relevant
qualifications.

2. Petty Infractions But Serious Consequences
Union members have received written warnings from management for petty
infraction of company rules, while non-union members are not disciplined in
the same way.       Workers at all five stores reported various forms of

18

discrimination against union members: being denied time off for weddings,
births, holidays, or to care for relatives; being denied social payments to assist
with the cost of weddings or births that are routinely given to non-union
workers; being denied payments for overtime and national holidays. Istanbul
workers reported that fellow union members had organized a collection to
raise money for a fellow union worker whose wife had just given birth, after
management had denied him any social payment.

3. Denial of promotions and pay increases to union members

Several union workers reported that their store managers informed them that
they would not receive promotions or pay increases while they are union
members. One Ankara worker reported that his manager stated: “I know you
are a union member. This is not good for you. I would consider you for a
promotion to supervisor, but not while you are a member of the union.”
Another worker at Izmir reported that while management has not talked
directly to him about his union membership, his store manager told him that he
“cannot get promotion to a management position because he belongs to a
‘bad organization.’”

4. Transfers to Less Desirable Positions or Work Schedules

Managers at IKEA Turkey have transferred pro-union workers to undesirable
jobs and departments, where the work routine is harder and where
opportunities for advancement are scarce. One Ankara worker reported that
shortly after joining the union, she was transferred to a laundry work area that
involved both working around bleach fumes -- which she considered a serious
health risk -- and working for long hours on her feet without a break. The
worker told management that she had recently become pregnant and could
not work in this area without potentially damaging her health, but her
supervisor refused to transfer her elsewhere. He told her: “If you don’t want to

19

do the work, I will find someone else to do your job.” Several other union
members workers report that they have been transferred to jobs involving
more arduous and potentially unsafe working conditions, with fewer
opportunities for advancement and less contact with non-union workers.

In addition to violating Turkish law, this retaliation against union members also
violates IKEA’s Code of Business Conduct. On the issue of discrimination, the
code states: “IKEA Trademark users shall not discriminate against any co-
worker based on…. union membership… or on any other basis in hiring and
employment practices (e.g. applications for employment, promotions, rewards,
access to training, job assignments, wages, benefits and termination).” In
Turkey, IKEA management has retaliated against union members in
promotions, rewards, job assignments and in other respects.

Part Five: Captive meetings and Coercive Speech at IKEA

Management has forced employees to attend both group and individual anti-
union meetings. Workers have been left in no doubt of the company’s negative
view of unions and its determination to operate union free. These “forced
listening” sessions would be unlawful in most European countries, and violate
several international labor standards.

1. IKEA Turkey opposes “Third Party Intervention”

Store managers, human resource managers, and even the CEO of IKEA
Turkey have conducted captive meetings. They have delivered the message
that unionization would not only hinder the competitiveness of the company --
by damaging its brand reputation and undermining productivity and flexibility --
but also hurt workers’ individual careers. Izmir workers reported Fuat Atalay
told employees at a captive meeting in August 2012 that they have a legal and
constitutional right to join a union, but the company does not want “third party

20

intervention” at its stores. Labor practices at IKEA stores in Europe would not
influence what happened at IKEA in Turkey. “IKEA can have a union all over
the world,” Atalay stated, “but we are Mapa, not IKEA.” Next, the HR Director
of IKEA Turkey, Ayla Akkaban, assured employees that their salaries and
social payments would soon increase, but only the company, and not the
union, could provide these financial improvements for employees. Istanbul
workers report that their store manager stated at a captive meeting: “IKEA
doesn’t have a union in Saudi Arabia, so we don’t need one in Turkey, either.”

2. “You Have the Right to Join a Union, But….

On several occasions, the CEO of IKEA Turkey, Fuat Atalay, has stated
emphatically that the company is “neutral” when it comes to the issue of
unionization among its employees. Atalay publicly stated in January 2013 that
IKEA management has "not discouraged workers from forming a union.” 11
When speaking directly to the company’s employees, however, he has
delivered an entirely different message – stating in no uncertain terms that
unions are unwelcome at IKEA Turkey. Atalay has stated repeatedly at captive
meetings that while, under Turkish labor law and its constitution, employees
have a legal right to join the union, IKEA management does not wish to have
“third-party intervention” at its stores, nor does it want anyone to put an
“outside party between us and our employees.” The message to workers is
always the same: “You have a constitutional right to join a union, but we do not
want and do not need a union at IKEA Turkey.”

Atalay has also accused the union of damaging the company, pressuring
employees to join the union against their will, and engaging in “illegal and
unacceptable” actions, according to workers at several stores. Workers
reported that when Atalay addressed them, the entire workforce -- including

11“IKEA to Open 3 New Stores in Turkey,” HABERLER.COM, January 11, 2013. Available at
http://en.haberler.com/ikea-to-open-3-new-stores-in-turkey-250914/

21

employees who were scheduled for a day off -- were required to attend. In
Turkey, IKEA management is neutral on the question of workers joining the
union only when employees do not actually try to exercise this right. If they do
choose a union, in contrast, IKEA management is anything but neutral. It is
fundamentally opposed to “third party intervention” and -- by means of captive
meetings, threats, bribes, and retaliation -- it has made this opposition clear to
its employees.

3. One-on-One Meetings, Interrogations and Surveillance

Management has gone to great lengths to find out which employees are union
members. It has conducted one-on-one anti-union meetings with employees,
at which they are interrogated about their union membership and about the
membership of their co-workers. Management has used Huseyin Durmaz – a
consultant who formerly worked for the union, though apparently was working
in collusion with the company even -- to interrogate workers. Although
management has apparently denied that he works for the company, Durmaz
has an office within one of IKEA’s Istanbul stores, and has interrogated
employees at all five stores about their union membership. He has also
propagated negative stories about Koop-Is and its officials, stating that it is a
“yellow” union -- one that makes sweetheart deals with employers that are not
in the interests of workers -- and that it senior officials are corrupt. Despite the
company’s denials, workers were under the impression that Durmaz is a HR
manager.

Management has adopted other forms of worker surveillance. Istanbul workers
stated that store managers had demanded to see their cell phones to check if
they had received calls from the local Koop-Is organizer. If they had,
management has used this as “proof” of their union membership. Intended to
instill a sense of fear and insecurity, management interrogation and
surveillance clearly violates international standards on freedom of association.

22

4. Coercive Speech, Not Free Speech

Workers report that management is continuing to hold captive anti-union
meetings. The message at these meetings is that joining the union is not only
futile and unnecessary, but an act of disloyalty to management. When non-
union employees receive this anti-union message from management
personnel at all levels of the firm, when they receive it at group and individual
“captive meetings,” and when the message is reinforced by widespread
discrimination against union members, they understand its true significance.
IKEA’s statements on unionization are not simply expressions of opinion, but
are thinly veiled threats. These statements are not examples of management
“free speech,” but examples of coercive speech. Under the guise of
expressing its opinion, IKEA management has warned employees that if they
join the union, they will suffer serious consequences.

Part Six: Stifling Pro-Union Voices

1. Lack of Union Access to the Workplace

IKEA management has gone to considerable lengths to prevent workers from
having direct contact with union officials. Managers have attempted to exclude
union officials from the workplace, and have isolated known union members
within the stores in order to limit their contact with other employees. When
union officials have visited IKEA stores, they have been followed at close
proximity and harassed by private security guards. IKEA security guards have
also prevented the distribution of pro-union literature at the stores.

Union members state that they have been transferred from departments in
which they had regular daily contact with non-union workers to departments in
which their contact with non-union workers is strictly limited. An Istanbul
restaurant worker reported that his store manager asked him to resign from

23

the union. When he refused, the worker was transferred to a position washing
dishes in a room that involved no contact with other employees. Other workers
have been warned against recruiting new members at the store. One union
member in Izmir stated that his store manager told him: “You have a right to
join the union, but while you are at work, you must not talk about the union or
get your coworkers to join. You must keep all discussion about the union to
outside of the workplace.” Thus, while management has taken full advantage
of its exclusive access to employees at the workplace, it has attempted to stifle
pro-union voices among union organizers and members.

IKEA management claims that it has restricted workers’ access to union
officials and supporters in order to prevent deliberate disruption at its stores.
While holding numerous anti-union meetings, management has used this
alleged need to avoid “disturbance for customers” as justification for clamping
down on pro-union voices at the workplace. But management actions have
gone far beyond any reasonable precautions designed to safeguard the
normal functioning of the workplace. Rather, it appears that this claim is simply
justification for tactics intended to ensure that workers cannot hear directly
from union officials or supporters. IKEA’s suppression of pro-union voices
conflicts with international labor standards on union access to the workplace,
and may also violate Turkish law.12

Part Seven: Anti-Union Indoctrination Among IKEA’s Newest
Employees

Workers at several stores report that IKEA management has aggressively
warned new employees against joining the union from the moment they are
first hired. Istanbul workers reported that store managers had told new hires

12Union officials should have access to the workplace so they can “communicate with workers in
order to apprise them of the potential advantages of unionization." 2006 ILO Committee on
Freedom of Association, Digest para.1103.

24

that IKEA “could close the store” if the workers form a union. Management has
told new employees that Koop-Is is a “corrupt organization,” and that its
officials do not have workers’ best interests at heart. Several activists reported
that managers had told new workers that they were “bad employees” who
were getting paid to recruit other employees, or that they have pressured non-
members to join the union. The workers stated emphatically that this was
untrue: Koop-Is is not paying them and they have never used intimidation
tactics on other employees. As a result of this none-too-subtle management
pressure, workers report that new employees are afraid to be seen in the
presence of union members at the workplace. Having witnessed firsthand the
retaliation experienced by union activists, they want to avoid suffering the
same fate. The atmosphere within IKEA stores around the issue of
unionization is one of fear and intimidation. In Turkey, new IKEA employees
do not have, and do not feel that they have, a free choice when it comes
to joining the union.

IKEA management has responded to workers’ efforts to form a union with a
pallid PR campaign. In November 2012, IKEA Turkey launched its “one heart
together” public relations campaign, which is intended to demonstrate the
alleged unity between management and workers and their opposition to “third
party intervention.” As part of the campaign, management instituted a so-
called “workers’ day” on which it would give every employee a share of the
company’s profits. However, most workers report that they received only 100
Turkish Lira on “workers’ day” – much less than had been promised and much
less than the workers had expected. As a result, many believed that
management had deceived them.

25

Part Eight: IKEA Values or Mapa Values?

1. When are IKEA Values Not IKEA Values?

The answer, it appears, is when they are Mapa values. According to senior
personnel, IKEA’s global values apply wherever the company operates,
including at stores operated under a franchise agreement. IKEA’s Code of
Business Conduct states: “All IKEA Trademark users are expected to have a
code of conduct for their co-workers that shall implement the requirements of
the IKEA Code.”      IKEA Turkey has publicly agreed with this position, and
claims never to have “acted outside the framework that is provided by
universal IKEA values.” But in private, it has told employees that it is not
bound by the values of IKEA, because, in the words Fuat Atalay, “this is Mapa,
not IKEA.” According to one recent report, “IKEA Turkey argues that Turkish
labor laws do not require it to follow the pro-union labor policies found at IKEA
stores in most other countries.”13

Adopting another commonly used anti-union tactic, IKEA Turkey has
threatened legal action against Koop-Is, alleging that its organizing activities
have damaged the company’s brand reputation. In a complete inversion of the
true situation in the stores, IKEA management has accused union officials and
members of intimidating employees in their effort to “force” them to join the
union.

2. IKEA’s Qualified Commitment to Social Dialogue

IKEA Turkey has stated that it believes in social dialogue with Koop-Is. In May
2012, management agreed on a process to establish social dialogue with
Koop-Is. But instead of publicizing its commitment to dialogue with employees,

13“IKEA to Open 3 New Stores in Turkey,” HABERLER.COM, January 11, 2013. Available at
http://en.haberler.com/ikea-to-open-3-new-stores-in-turkey-250914/

26

IKEA management posted the letter on store noticeboards, where many
workers were unaware of its existence. When the union subsequently
publicized IKEA’s commitment to dialogue, many workers joined the union,
believing that this meant they could do so without fear of retribution by
management. Unfortunately, management has not allowed them that free
choice.

Part Nine: IKEA’s Labor Record in Other Countries: A Tale of
Two Systems

1. IKEA Respects Workers’ Rights Where Labor Law Is Strong

In countries in which the law offers strong protection for labor standards, and
workers’ voice is a vital component of the employment relations system, IKEA
respects workers’ rights. Strong protections exist in several European counties
in which IKEA operates: Norway, Denmark, Austria, Sweden, and Belgium.
Somewhat weaker protections exist in Australia. In these countries, the
company respects workers’ freedom of association, engages in social dialogue
with unions, pays decent wages and provides good workplace health and
safety conditions. IKEA stores in these countries provide several examples of
“best practices” in workplace relations: labor-management cooperation in
Norway, union access in Australia, and health and safety committees in
Norway, and others. Labor law and the institutions of employment relations in
these countries require that management respects workers’ rights, and the
company complies with this.

2. But IKEA Violates Workers’ Rights in Countries Where Labor Law is
Weak

Unfortunately, IKEA’s labor record is worse in countries that offer weaker
protection for fundamental rights because of inadequate laws, weak penalties

27

for violating laws, or poor enforcement of those laws. Countries with weak
legal protections include Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Russia, Poland, Czech
Republic, and the United States, among others. In these countries IKEA
management has exploited weak laws and routinely violated workers’ right to
form a union. It has allegedly harassed and spied on union activists, held
“captive audience” meetings, prevented workers from hearing pro-union
voices, and created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation in the workplace.
The anti-union behavior of IKEA management in these countries violates
international standards on freedom of association.

Part Ten: Turkish Law, “IKEA Values,” and International
Standards

1. IKEA’s Actions Violate Turkish Law

Turkey falls into this latter category of countries with weak protection for
freedom of association. 14 The International Labor Organization, European
Union, International Trades Union Confederation and other international
organizations have criticized the law for allowing anti-union employers to
intimidate and coerce workers. 15              IKEA management has exploited the
deficiencies of the law to undermine the free choice of its employees. On
every one the major union-related protections provided by Turkish law –
protections against discriminatory dismissal, protection against discriminatory
treatment, protection against unlawful coercion to resign from the union or

14 Private sector union membership in Turkey is now approximately 3.5% -- the lowest in the
OECD -- and has fallen more in the past decades than in any other OECD nation.
15 In 2011, the ILO’s Committee on the Application of Standards expressed “concern about the

new allegations of the restrictions placed on freedom of association and assembly of trade
unionists.” Also in 2011, the European Commission criticized the “limited progress in the area of
social dialogue," and called on the government to “ensure that full trade union rights are
respected in line with EU standards.” The ITUC’s 2012 Annual Survey of Violations of Trade
Union Rights concludes: “Trade union rights [in Turkey] are not adequately secured in the law.”

28

unlawful intimidation not to join the union – IKEA management appears to
have behaved unlawfully.16

2. IKEA’s Code of Business Conduct Falls Short of International
Standards

IKEA’s Code of Business Conduct fails to conform to international standards
on freedom of association in certain key respects, thereby calling into question
its commitment to those standards. IKEA’s Code of Business Conduct states:
“IKEA Trademark users shall respect the rights of co-workers to (or not to)
associate freely, form and join worker organizations of their own choosing,
seek representation, and bargain collectively, as permitted by and in
accordance with applicable laws and regulations.” None of the leading
international standards on freedom of association include the words “or not
to” associate. These words are found nowhere in the ILO’s core conventions,
UN’s Global Compact or OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. Their
omission from leading international standards and inclusion in IKEA’s code is
not an oversight or a minor textual difference. These words adds nothing to
workers’ rights – workers can, of course, choose not to associate, just like they
can refrain from exercising in any other workplace right. Legally the words are
of no consequence because implicit in the right to associate is the right not to
associate. The inclusion of these seemingly innocuous words, however, is
vitally important because they are essentially code words for management
actions that violate international standards on freedom of association. By
including them in its code of conduct, IKEA is akin to any anti-union employer
that follows universally condemned norms. When added to a corporate code of
conduct, the words “or not to” are routinely used to justify employer anti-union

16Nurhan Sural, “Anti-Discrimination Rule and Policies in Turkey,” Comparative Labor Law and
Policy Journal, 13: 01 (2009); Kadriye Bakirei, “Unfair Dismissal in Turkish Employment Law,”
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 16:2 (June 2004); Melda Sur, “General Framework
and Historical Development of Labor Law in Turkey,” 13:01 (2009), Comparative Labor Law and
Policy Journal.

29

campaigns: if employees have a right “not to associate,” management must
have a right -- even a duty -- to “educate” them about that right. In practice this
means that workers are subjected to aggressive and sometime unlawful anti-
union coercion and intimidation.

Moreover, the inclusion of these words lends credence to the (demonstrably
false) notion that the main threat facing workers is union or co-worker coercion
to join the union, rather than management coercion not to join. According to all
the workers interviewed, there is no evidence of intimidation by workers or
union officials at IKEA Turkey. Unlike management, moreover, unions and
workers have no coercive power over their fellow employees: they cannot fire
workers, deny them promotions or pay raises or discriminate against them in
other ways. Management, in contrast, has that coercive power, and IKE
Turkey has used it to prevent employees from exercising their free choice.

A second problem with IKEA’s code of business conduct is its wording
referring to “worker organizations” rather than to unions. This could easily be
taken by local management as license to undermine legitimate unions. A
common management tactic in Turkey is to encourage workers to join
company-dominated unions or “yellow unions.” The country has a history of
employer-controlled, government-controlled and symbiotic unions, and sham
labor organizations remain a threat to genuine collective bargaining. The
code’s reference to “worker organizations,” at a minimum, may confuse local
managers in countries like Turkey who often lack knowledge of international
standards on freedom of association. Even by the weak standards established
by IKEA’s own code, the actions of management in Turkey are unacceptable.
By threatening, interrogating and discriminating against union workers, it has
consistently violated their right to associate in an organization “of their own
choosing.”

30

3. IKEA Turkey’s Violation of International Labor Standards

While IKEA claims to engage with leading organizations on employment
             17
relations,        the anti-union actions of its management in Turkey violate
international standards on freedom of association. These include the principles
of United Nations Global Compact (UNGC), the core conventions of the
International Labor Organization (ILO), and the guidelines of the Organization
of Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD).

IKEA became a signatory to the UNGC -- an international effort to encourage
corporations to adopt socially responsible practices and report on their
implementation -- in 2004 and last submitted a “Communication in Progress” in
2009. Under the UNGC, companies must ensure that all workers “are able to
form and join a trade union of their choice without fear of intimidation or
reprisal” and ensure “union-neutral policies and procedures that do not
discriminate against individuals because of their views on trade unions or for
their trade union activities.” By interfering with the decision of its employees to
choose a union, IKEA Turkey has failed to “embrace, support and enact”
Principle 3 of the UNGC.18

IKEA states that it “engages in dialogue with the ILO on working conditions
and labor standards.”           IKEA’s Code of Business Conduct States that
trademark users “shall uphold the human rights of co-workers and treat them
with dignity and respect as understood by internationally recognized laws and
standards including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” But the

17Based on the ILO’s core conventions and the UN Global Compact, the company’s IWAY code
of conduct for suppliers states: “The IKEA supplier shall ensure that workers are not prevented
from associating freely.” IWAY Standard (2008.06.04). Available at:
http://www.ikea.com/ms/en_US/about_ikea/pdf/SCGlobal_IWAYSTDVers4.pdf
18 Principle 3 of the UNGC states: “Employers should not interfere in an employee’s

decision to associate [i.e. or organize or join a trade union], or discriminate against the
employee or their representative.” UN Global Compact, “About the UN Global Compact:
The Ten Principles.” Available at:
http://www.unglobalcompact.org/AboutTheGC/TheTenPrinciples/principle3.html

31

behavior of IKEA management in Turkey falls well short of the clear standards
established by ILO’s core conventions 87 and 98 and the 1998 Declaration on
Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.19

According to the ILO’s Committee on Freedom of Association, the following
actions constitute improper interference with workers’ freedom of association:

     •   Creating an atmosphere of intimidation and fear prejudicial to the
         development of union activities

     •   Pressuring or threatening retaliatory measures against workers for union
         membership

     •   Attempting to persuade employees to withdraw authorizations given to a
         union to unduly influence the choice of workers and undermine the union

     •   Harassing and intimidating workers by reason of union membership

     •   Offering bribes to union members to encourage their withdrawal from the
         union

     •   Committing acts calculated to cause the dismissal of or directly
         dismissing a worker by reason of union membership, including by
         invoking “neglect of duty” when the real motive for dismissal is a worker’s
         union activities

     •   Transferring or downgrading a worker as a result of union membership

     •   Granting bonuses to non-unionists but excluding union members from
         such bonuses20

19ILO, Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, 1998,
https://www.ilo.org/declaration/thedeclaration/lang--eng/index.htm. Convention 87 states
that workers “shall have the right to establish and ... to join organizations of their own
choosing without previous authorization.” Convention 98 states that workers “shall enjoy
adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their
employment....”
20 ILO, Freedom of Association: Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of
Association Committee of the Governing Body of the ILO, Fifth(revised) edition (2006), paras.
35, 67, 514, 638, 682, 772, 780, 781, 786, 787, 803, 810, 837, 839, 858, 863, 864, 865.