EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY REGARDING DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY IN TURKEY

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 4, 359 - 364, 30.12.2018

Gizem Saribay Ozturk

https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2018.996

Öz

Purpose- The aim of this study is to examine the employer’s liability concerning domestic workers and their occupational health and safety in the Turkish legal system.

Methodology- The employer’s liability concerning domestic workers and their occupational health and safety will be discussed in light of the Turkish legislation and views of scholars.

Findings- It is stipulated under Turkish Code of Obligations that the employer is obliged to take any type of measures and to keep tools and vehicles available as required to ensure occupational health and safety in the workplace.

Conclusion- Domestic workers are real workers and bearing this in mind the domestic workers have distinctive structures. New laws are necessary to guarantee decent occupational health and safety conditions. However, the law is not always sufficient to improve occupational health and safety conditions for a domestic worker. The topic of domestic workers is not only a legalisation or an absense of perception issue but also a community education challenge.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Domestic worker, household employee, occupational health and safety, labour law, Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, The Code of Occupational Health and Safety, Health and Safety Law No. 6331

Kaynakça

• Albin, E., Mantouvalou, V. (2011/1). The ILO convention on domestic workers: from the shadows to the light. UCL Labour Rights Institute On-Line Working Papers. 1-16.
• Alfers, L. (2011). Occupational health and safety & domestic work. A Synthesis of Research Findings From Brazil and Tanzania. 1-26.
• Baycık, G. (2013/3). Çalışanların iş sağlığı ve güvenliğine ilişkin haklarında yeni düzenlemeler. Ankara Barosu Dergisi. 106-167.
• Blackett, A. (1998). Making Domestic work visible, the case for specific regulation, labour law and labour relations programme working paper No. 2, Geneva, ILO. 1-29
• Caniklioğlu, N. (2012). 6331 sayılı iş sağlığı ve güvenliği kanununda öngörülen işveren yükümlülükleri. Türkiye Toprak, Seramik, Çimento ve Cam Sanayii İşverenleri Sendikası, Çalışma Mevzuatı Semineri, 26-30 Eylül 2012, Antalya, 27-84.
• Centel, T. (2013). İş sağlığı ve güvenliği kanunu’nun uygulama alanı ve kapsamı. Prof. Dr. Nur Centel’e Armağan, MÜHF-HAD. Volume. 19. Number 2. 79-84.
• Ekonomi, M. (1987). İş hukuku. Volume.I, Ferdi İş Hukuku,.3. edition, İstanbul.
• Erdoğdu, S., Toksöz, G. (2013). The visible face of women’s invisible labour: domestic workers in Turkey. Conditions of Work and Employment Series No. 42. Geneva, ILO. 1-52
• Ertürk, Ş. (2012). İş sağlığı ve güvenliği kanunu’nda işverene getirilen yükümlülükler. Sicil İş Hukuku Dergisi, Number. 27, September, 13-24.
• Güzel, A. (2003). Dünyada ve ülkemizde işyeri hekimliğine yaklaşım, sorunlar ve çözüm önerileri. Uluslararası ve Ulusal Hukuk Sisteminde İşyeri Hekimliği Sempozyumu, TTB Ankara, 9-64.
• Huws, U., Podro, S. (1995). Employment of homeworkers: examples of good practice. ILO, Geneva. 1-35.
• Johnstone, L. (2013). Organising domestic workers: for decent work and the ILO Convention No. 189. Master Thesis, Oslo and Akerhus University College of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences. 1-56.
• ILO (2010). Decent work for domestic workers report IV(1). International Labour Conference, 99th Session, Geneva. ILO. 1-130.
• ILO (2012). Effective protection for domestic workers: a guide to designing labour laws. Geneva, ILO. 1-118.
• ILO (2016). Social protection policy papers, Paper 16, social protection for domestic workers. Key Policy Trends and Statistics, International Labour Office, Geneva. ILO. 1-69.
• Mantouvalou, V. (2012). Human rights for precarious workers, the legislative precariousness of domestic labour. UCL Labour Rights Institute On-Line Working Papers. 1-24.
• Ocak, S. (2012). 6331 sayılı iş sağlığı ve güvenliği kanununun taraflara getirdiği yükümlülükler, iş sağlığı ve iş güvenliğine hukuki bakış paneli. Öz-İplik İş Sendikası ve Yeni Yüzyıl Üniversitesi, İstanbul. 109-171.
• Özdemir, E. (2014). İş sağlığı ve güvenliği hukuku. Vedat.
• Santana, V. S., de Amorim, A. M., Oliviera, R., Xavier, S., Iriart, J., Belitardo, L. (2003). Housemaids and non-fatal occupational injuries. Rev Saude Publica, 37 (1): 65-74.
• Sarıbay Öztürk, G. (2016). The precarious situation of domestic workers in the light of Turkish Labour Law and ILO Convention No. 189. Journal for Labour and Social Affairs in Eastern Europe. 171-181.
• Sarıbay Öztürk, G. (2017). Domestic workers’ working hours in Turkey. In Light of ILO Convention No.189. Hungarian Labour Law E- Journal, S.2. 30-47.
• Sarıbay Öztürk, G. (2015). İş sağlığı ve güvenliği yükümlülüklerinin yerine getirilmemesinin hukuki, idari ve cezai sonuçları. Beta.
• Soyer, P. (2003). 4857 sayılı yeni iş kanununun ücret, işin düzenlenmesi, iş sağlığı ve güvenliğine ilişkin bazı hükümleri üzerine düşünceler. 4857 Sayılı Yeni İş Kanunu Değerlendirme Konferans Notları, Türk-İş, 12-36.
• Süzek, S. (1985). İş güvenliği hukuku. Ankara. Savaş.
• Ünlütürk Ulutaş, Ç., Durusoy Öztepe, N. (2013). Ev hizmetlerinde mesleki sağlık ve güvenlik sorunu. Volume. 4, Number. 2, Çalışma İlişkileri Dergisi, 44-57.
• www.hukukturk.com.tr
• www.bianet.org