about the process:77 “Unlike claimed by the management of Hugo Boss, we never discredited the products. There is also no evidence in this regard. A lot of friends joined this demonstration, but only Zeynel and I were dismissed. We think that this is the because we had participated in the unionisation efforts at the factory. There was already systematic pressure and intimidation. They were messing with us. They used the Istinyepark demonstration as an excuse to dismiss us. Our struggle will continue.” 77 http://haber.sol.org.tr/emek-sermaye/hugo-boss-sendikali-iscileri-marka-itibarina-zarar-verdikleri-iddiasiyla-isten-atti Source: Ekmek Ve Gül - [TEKSİF Hugo Boss Throughout 2017 and during the first three months of 2018, protest] Hugo Boss: the enterprise dismissed more than 500 workers who had Show respect to the union rights of workers! joined and were involved with the unionisations efforts for Dismissed workers shall the TEKSİF Union. Ergin Yıldız, who had been working for be reinstated! Hugo Boss as a buttonhole machine operator for 14 years, was one of the dismissed workers. He was one of the Union representatives and said he was first transferred to another department from one he worked at for the last 13.5 years, adding that: “Even though I have a doctor’s report regarding my arm injury, they forced me to work in a department where I am less efficient. I have a report stating that I cannot iron. Even though I wanted to be transferred to my old department, they did not change my post. In the end, they dismissed me due to inefficient performance. I was under surveillance all the time. My friends were in the same situation. They tried to put pressure on us by constantly asking us questions.”76 Workers tried to make their voices heard to the public by starting a demonstration in front of Hugo Boss stores in Izmir. Referring to the State of Emergency, the Governorate of Izmir banned the demonstration in front of the Hugo Boss stores. With the help of the Union, workers then went to Istanbul to start a demonstration in front of the Hugo Boss store in Istinyepark. However, two workers were dismissed here for “damaging the brand’s reputation” while protesting the violation of their right of association. One of these workers, Eda Türk, talked 76 https://www.evrensel.net/haber/376403/hugo-bossta-3-ayda-150-isci-isten-atildi 68 C O L L E C T I V E R I G H T S O F W O R K E R S U N D E R T U R K E Y ’ S C O N T I N U O U S S TAT E O F E M E R G E N C Y T R A D E U N I O N R I G H T S I N E U R O P E A N A N D E U R O P E A N - A F F I L I AT E D E N T E R P R I S E S CONCLUSION As illustrated above, the State of Emergency declared in 2016 has led to a higher level of labour rights violations in Turkey. Even though violations of labour rights did not necessarily start during the State of Emergency, these violations have become more frequent and permanent as a result of it. The State of Emergency, which officially ended, is still de facto in place, especially for workers. Despite criticisms and warnings from international actors and courts’ judgments, there has been no improvement. The report provides examples of widespread labour rights violations: the freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining and strike, the right to peaceful assembly, and more broadly the freedom of speech and assembly in general, which are guaranteed by ILO’s fundamental conventions. It is clear that the European companies in question do not have the main responsibility for this situation. Instead, it is a result of the official and de facto State of Emergency, decisions of the government and its practices. However, it can be seen that European companies also take advantage of the situation and commit widespread rights violations in Turkey. In their own countries, many European companies have to respect the rights of association, collective bargaining and striking. They have well-developed social dialogue mechanisms and established internal principles in addition to international agreements. These standards are unfortunately adhered to in a limited way by the companies while operating in Turkey, often in violation of the principles of human rights compliance defined by the companies themselves. CONCLUSION 69