132 NEWSLETTER 2021 wages. Through aiming to create a monopsony on the purchasing side of the labor markets, wage fixing agreements between competitors can also reduce the labor costs of the undertakings that are party to the agreement;3 whereas, non-poaching agreements limit the employees’ opportunities to switch jobs that have higher wages and, thus, suppress an increase in their salaries over a period of time. With these features, the relevant agreements are considered no different from cartels on the buying side of the market by the Authority.4 It is also underlined in Board decisions that wage-fixing agreements constitute determining purchase prices that clearly aim to prevent competition5 and that these agreements are no different from price fixing agreements; whereas, non-poaching agreements are no different from customer or market allocation agreements.6 In the Özel Okullar Birliği decision, where the issue was examined in detail, the Board evaluated the practices that forbid offers of transfer to teachers between private schools.7 It was decided that these practices were within the scope of Article 4 of Law No. 4054 and could not benefit from individual exemption, since they were harmful to both consumers and the teachers working in these schools.8 Similarly, in the BFIT decision, provisions stating that any employees who are employed or were formerly employed by the BFİT or another BFİT franchisee, or who have worked in competitor companies, could not be employed without the prior written approval of the BFİT has been evaluated. In this regard, it was decided that the provision was within the scope of Article 4 of Law No. 4054 and could not benefit from individual exemption, since it restricted competition more than necessary in the labor markets. Consequently, it was concluded that the duration of the relevant provision should be limited with the agreements’ period, the reason for the written approval must be clearly stated, and an opinion pursuant to Article 9/3 of Law No. 4054 must be sent. 3 The Board’s Bfit decision No. 19-06/64-27, 07.02.2019, para 45. 4 The Board’s İzmir Konteyner decision, para 32. 5 The Board’s Dizi Oyuncuları decision No. 05-49/710-195, 28.07.2005. 6 The Board’s İzmir Konteyner decision. 7 The Board’s Özel Okulları Birliği decision No. 11-12/226-76, 03.03.2011. 8 Ibid.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjUzNjE=