Download PDF
FOOTWEAR, LEATHER AND RUBBER PRODUCTS WORKER'S UNION OF NIGERIA AND MANAGEMENT OF WADDI LEATHER INDUSTRIES LIMITED (NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT) H ON. JUSTICE (CHIEF) P.A. ATILADE PRESIDENT DR O.I. ODUMOSU MEMBER S.O. KOKU,ESQ. MEMBER DR. E. C. IWUJI MEMBER ALHAJI Z.M. BELLO MEMBER SUIT NO: NIC/2/83 DATE OF JUDGMENT TUESDAY, 15 NOVEMBER, 1983 LABOUR LAW Redundancy benefits - Seek for payment of-Where contained in Collective Agreement -Duty on employer to apply. LABOUR LAW Trade union - Union dues - Deduction of -Where workers are not union members -Whether employer has power to deduct dues from their wages. TRADE UNION LAW Trade union dues - Deduction of - Where workers are not union members - Whether employer has power to deduct dues from their wages. ISSUES: Whether the Industrial Arbitration Panel was right in treating the case of the sixteen workers as one of redundancy. Whether the Appellant is entitled to union dues from the Respondent's workers when the Appellant had no branch of its union at the Respondent's factory. FACTS: There was a trade dispute between the parties relating to non-payment of redundancy - accordance with the Collective Agreement between the parties, and non-payment dues to the Appellant. The Industrial Arbitration Panel (IAP) in its Award granted the Appellant's prayer on redundancy benefit, but made no Award on payment of union dues. The Appellant object to the Award, and it was referred to the National Industrial Court. The Appellant's case was that the Industrial Arbitration Panel's Award was an undercuts of section 8(3)( 1) of Exhibit "A", a Collective Agreement between the parties, which deals with the conditions governing redundancy. The (IAP) award was based on Appendix "B” agreement between management and the union dated 20th January, 1982, instead of the Collective Agreement Exhibit "A". Both the Respondent and the Appellant had refused to accept Appendix "B". The Appellant then urged the court to uphold the scale of redundancy payment as stated in section 8(3)( 1) of Exhibit "A". The Respondent argued that the purpose of the Notice of Closure of the Factory was to close down the factory temporarily but not to declare the workers redundant. That was Respondent did not comply with the conditions governing redundancy as laid down in Collective Agreement (Exhibit "A"). The Appellant also maintained that the Respondents had no right to stop the payment of check off if only in respect of the 4 people who were re-employed by the Respondent. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that the decision of the IAP of no award of check-off pay-was unassailable and that the Appellants had admitted both before IAP and the court that had not re-established their branch union since the closure of the factory. HELD: (Granting redundancy pay but refusing deduction of dues): 1. On whether an employer has power to deduct dues from wages of workers who are not union members - An employer has no power to deduct dues from the wages of workers who are not union members. Thus, in this case, the Appellant is not entitled to any union dues from Respondent after the closure of its factory, since the Appellant had not re-establish its branch union in the factory. 2. On Duty of employer to pay workers redundancy benefits in accordance applicable scale in a Collective Agreement - Where there is a Collective Agreement providing for the scale for payment redundancy benefits to workers, the court will compel the employer to enforce provisions of such an agreement where an employer wanted to do away with its worker under the guise of closing down its factory. HON. JUSTICE (CHIEF) P.A. ATILADE PRESIDENT, DR O.I. ODUMOSU MEMBER, S.O. KOKU,ESQ. MEMBER, DR. E.C. IWUJI MEMBER, Z.M. BELLO MEMBER