Download PDF
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><u>REPRESENTATION<o:p></o:p></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">Chief A. N. Osuji, for the claimants.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">E. T. Otuoniyo, for the defendants.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u>RULING<o:p></o:p></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">1. The claimants filed this action on 17<sup>th</sup> February 2016 vide a General Form of Writ of Complaint accompanied by the statement of claim, list of witnesses, witness statement on oath, list of 4 documents and copies of the documents. The endorsement on the writ reads as follows –<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify">The claimants claim that this Honourable Court order the defendants to implement the product of the communiqué issued on the 23<sup>rd</sup> February 2010 after a tripartite meeting between the management of Bristow Helicopters (Nigeria Limited, Pan African Airlines (Nigeria Limited and Air Transport Service Senior Staff Association of Nigeria and under the Auspices of Federal Ministry of Labour and productivity be implemented, and complete the payment to the claimants the outstanding total sum of N100,637,079.39 which the defendant have refused or neglected to implement despite repeated demand.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">Beyond this, the claimants at the second page of their statement of claim then tabulated sums of money due and payable to the claimants by “Bristow Helicopter Nigeria Limited”. Nothing was said of the 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">2. The defendants entered appearance, filed their defence processes as well as a preliminary objection. In the preliminary objection, the defendants prayed this Court to strike out this suit “<i>in limine</i>, as this Honourable Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to entertain, hear and determine this suit as presently constituted. The grounds upon which the objection is based are: the claimants have no <i>locus standi</i> to institute the suit; the claimants did not exhaust the processes of the Trade Disputes Act (TDA) LFN 2004 in respect of the alleged trade dispute before approaching this Court; the suit as constituted cannot be brought jointly by the claimants; and the suit is an abuse of court process. In support of the preliminary objection is an affidavit and a written address. In reaction, the claimants filed a counter-affidavit with a supporting written address.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">3. The defendants framed four issues for the determination of the Court, namely –<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]-->a)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span><!--[endif]-->Having regard to the facts of that the collective bargaining agreement as comprised in the communiqué dated 27<sup>th</sup> September 2010 was not reached between the claimants and defendants, whether the claimants have the <i>locus standi</i> to institute the suit as presently constituted.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]-->b)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span><!--[endif]-->Whether the claimants failed to exhaust the available remedy provide in the TDA before instituting this action and whether failure to exhaust the available remedies constitute failure to comply with the condition precedent for the institution of this action as presently constituted.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]-->c)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span><!--[endif]-->Whether the suit as presently constituted can be brought jointly by the instant claimants.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]-->d)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span><!--[endif]-->Whether the instant suit constitutes an abuse of court process, and whether this honourable Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">4. Regarding issue a), the argument of the defendants is that the claimants, not being parties to the collective bargaining agreement reached between the defendants and ATSSSAN as comprised in the communiqué dated 27<sup>th</sup> September 2010, they cannot sue on it, citing <i>UBN Ltd v. Edet</i> [1993] 4 NWLR (Pt. 287) 288 at 298. In any event, that the communiqué sought to be enforced by the claimants is not justiciable, citing <i>Ajayi v. Adebiyi</i> [2012] 11 NWLR (Pt. 1310) 137 at 176 and <i>UBN v. Edet</i>. That there was no trade dispute between the claimants and the defendants, the trade dispute in issue being between the defendants and ATSSSAN. For lack of <i>locus</i>, the defendants submitted that this Court cannot assume jurisdiction in this matter, citing <i>Dagazau v. Bokir Int’l Co. Ltd</i> [2011] 14 NWLR (Pt. 1267) 261 at 309.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">5. On issue b), the defendants submitted that even if this Court had jurisdiction over this case, the claimants did not exhaust the processes of Part I of the TDA, which processes are pre-conditions which must be fulfilled before this Court can assume jurisdiction, referring to <i>INC v. Mobil Oil (Nig) Plc</i> [1990] 5 NWLR (Pt. 601) – the page was not supplied.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">6. As for issue c), the defendants submitted that the claimants cannot bring this suit jointly as each of them had his own individual contractual relationship with the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant. That the claimants do not have a common grievance and interest to warrant them bringing this action jointly, referring to <i>CCB (Nig.) Plc v. Rose</i> [1998] 4 NWLR (Pt. 544) 37 at 50 and <i>Bossa v. Julius Berger Plc</i> [2005] 15 NWLR (Pt. 948) 409 at 430.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">7. In respect of issue d), the defendants contended that the claimants instituted this suit to irritate, annoy and blackmail the defendants and to interfere with the due administration of justice. That this is because the claimants were well aware that they were not parties to collective bargaining agreement comprised in the communiqué of 27<sup>th</sup> September 2010 and that the said communiqué is not binding in law. Also that the claimants could have used the processes of Part I of the TDA to ventilate their grievance but chose to come to this Court there by abusing the due process of law and interfering with the due administration of justice.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">8. In adopting their written address and orally adumbrating, the defendants added that nowhere in the statement of claim did the claimants plead that they are members of ATSSSAN or show by documentary evidence that they are members as such. The defendants then prayed the Court to strike out or dismiss this case.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">9. In opposing the preliminary objection, the claimants contended that the objection lacks merit. The claimants first attacked the supporting affidavit of the defendants arguing that “the person who swore to [it] ought not to be on hear say”. Secondly, the claimants attacked the propriety of the address of the defendants arguing that the address of counsel cannot take the place of evidence no matter how brilliantly written, citing a number of case law authorities. The claimants then urged the Court to allow the case to go to trial so that they can prove that there was a dispute between the parties. Beyond this, the claimants did not actually react to the actual issues raised by the defendants.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">10. The defendants did not file any reply on points of law.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">11. After a careful consideration of the processes and submissions of the parties, I need to first dispel an assumption of the defendants. The defendants referred to the communiqué of 27<sup>th</sup> September 2010 as a collective bargaining agreement. This is wrong. A communiqué is not a collective agreement or a collective bargaining agreement. See <i>PENGASSAN v. Mobil Nig</i><i><span lang="EN-GB">.</span> Unl</i><i><span lang="EN-GB">td</span></i> [2013] 32 NLLR (Pt. 92) 243 NIC where this Court asserted thus: “How minutes and communiqué of meetings can amount to collective agreement beats our imagination”.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">12. I indicated earlier that the claimants did not actually react to the issues raised by the defendants. The issue before the Court is whether this suit is actually competent as filed. I start with the endorsed claim of the claimants, which I quoted at the start of this ruling. From that endorsement, the claimants hinged their claim on the communiqué of 27<sup>th</sup> September 2010. I asked the claimants’ counsel in open Court whether a communiqué is an agreement from which the claimants can draw an entitlement as to come to this Court. I got no answer from the claimants’ counsel. I made the point earlier that a communiqué is not a collective agreement. Not being a collective agreement, it is incapable of giving rise to entitlements upon which employees can base their claims. The jurisdiction of this Court under section 254C(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, relates to the interpretation and application of collective agreements. A communiqué, not being one, means that it cannot be the basis of an action by an employee. There is an ancillary issue to this. Nowhere in the communiqué is it provided that anyone, not least the claimants, is entitled to any sum of money. The resolutions reached are to the effect that outstanding negotiation and review of terms and conditions of service should commence and run concurrently.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">13. Secondly, nowhere in the statement of facts did the claimants plead that they are members of Air Transport Services Senior Staff Association (ATSSSAN). In paragraph 1 of the statement of claim, the claimants indicated that they “are senior staff employees of the defendants”. As senior staff, their membership of ATSSSAN is not automatic. They must individually and in writing indicate that they want to be members of ATSSSAN. Once membership of a union is not pleaded, a senior staff cannot take the benefit of a collective agreement, that is, assuming that the communiqué of 27<sup>th</sup> September 2010 even qualifies as a collective agreement. See <i>Aghata N. Onuorah v. Access Bank Plc</i> [2015] 55 NLLR (Pt. 186) 17, <i>Samson Kehinde Akindoyin v. Union Bank of Nigeria</i> Plc unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/308/2013 the judgment of which was delivered on 15<sup>th</sup> April 2015 and <i>Mr. Valentine Ikechukwu Chiazor v. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc</i> unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/122/2014 the judgment of which was delivered on 12<sup>th</sup> July 2016. The claimants’ oral argument that the communiqué itself has the name of the 2<sup>nd</sup> claimant, Mr. Cyprian E. Opara, as a signatory thus showing him to be a member of ATSSSAN does not meet the requirement/rule of pleading. In any event, more direct documentary evidence is needed to evidence membership of a trade union such as the membership card or evidence of deduction of check-off dues. <i>Habu v. NUT Taraba State</i> [2005] 4 FWLR (Pt. 283) 646, for instance, held that the deduction from salaries and wages as check-off dues of a worker and the remittance of same to a trade union is an incidence of membership of the worker.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">14. Thirdly, it was ATSSSAN that declared a trade dispute with the defendants. See paragraph 4 of the statement of claim. ATSSSAN is not a party to this suit. Where the claimants came from, nobody knows. At least the statement of claim did not make any pleading in that regard. Other than paragraph 1 of the statement of claim describing them as “senior staff employees of the defendants”, they are not in any paragraph of the pleading described as members of ATSSAN. In this sense, I agree with the defendants that the claimants lack the <i>locus standi</i> to come to this Court over the claim they endorsed on the “General Form of Writ of Complaint”. In any event, since a trade dispute was declared by ATSSSAN, it behoves on ATSSSAN to see the dispute through, not the claimants.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">15. For these reasons, thus suit is incompetent as filed. It is accordingly dismissed.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">16. Ruling is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">……………………………………<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip, PhD<o:p></o:p></p>