133 COMPETITION LAW Whether the relevant practices lead to a decrease in the quality of the products produced, or the services offered, is also a controversial issue. The more popular opinion suggests that as a result of suppression of wages for employees, labor supply along with production or service delivery may decrease, causing an increase in prices.9 To conclude, due to the reasons, above, the Authority deems that it has the jurisdiction to evaluate wage fixing and non-poaching agreements within the labor markets, and to subject them to investigations. Conclusion It is clear that theAuthority examines certain agreements in the labor markets within the scope of Law No. 4054. Popular opinion exists that where wage fixing agreements are executed between competitors, they become a structure similar to that of cartels on the buying side; whereas, non-poaching agreements lead to restriction of employees’ mobility and, therefore, allow the undertakings to benefit. The fact that the relevant agreements do not benefit consumers in any way and, therefore, cannot benefit from individual exemption under Article 5 of Law No. 4054 is also another point often noted in Board decisions. 9 The Board’s İzmir Konteyner decision, para 31.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjUzNjE=