Download PDF
NIGERIAN SUGAR COMPANY LTD. AND NATIONAL UNION OF FOOD, BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO EMPLOYEES (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/13/78 DATE OF JUDGMENT 17th JANUARY, 1979 LABOUR LAW Ex-gratia payment or payment of bonus - Non¬payment to dismissed workers - Party alleging -Responsibility thereon. LABOUR LAW Lock-out of workers - Where employer shuts the gates of its factory to its workers - Whether action amounts to lock-out of workers. LABOUR LAW National Industrial Court - Whether can rehear a case and take fresh evidence. LABOUR LAW Re-instatement of dismissed workers - When court will not make - Whether court can order severance pay in lieu of. LABOUR LAW Trade union - Workers' union's internal affairs - Need for employer not to be involved therein. TRADE UNION LAW Trade union - Workers' union's internal affairs -Need for employer not to be involved therein TRADE UNION LAW Trade union affairs - Need for employer not to be involved therein. ISSUES: 1. Whether the Industrial Arbitration Tribunal should have ordered the re-instatement of the workers as against their re-engagement as contained in the Tribunal's Award. 2. Whether the dismissed workers were entitled to the grant of 10% bonus or ex-gratia payment to the workers in the service of the 1st party in December, 1975. 3. Whether the 1st party was liable to payment of check-off deductions to the Respondent for the period April, 1975 to February, 1978. 4. Whether the dismissed workers were entitled to payment of redundancy benefits as an alternative to reinstatement. FACTS: The Nigerian Sugar Company Ltd. the 1st party had a trade dispute with the defunct Bacita and Allied Sugar Factory and Industrial Workers Union of Nigeria, which formed part of the National Union of Food Beverages and Tobacco Employees, the 2nd party. The dispute was handed by the Industrial Arbitration Panel, which made an Award. The 1st party submitted an objection to the award of the Panel, which it later withdrew with leave of the court. The 2nd party also raised an objection to the award of the Panel, and both parties were heard on their cross-objections. On this part, the 2nd party contended that since the Panel had confirmed that the workers were wrongly dismissed and/or victimized for their union activities", the reinstatement of such workers should have been ordered and not re-engagement, as the latter would result in untold hardship on the affected workers since they would not be paid for the entire period of their termination. It also contended that the 10% bonus or ex-gratia payment which the 1st party made to other workers in the service of the 1st party in December, 1975 should be made to the dismissed workers and that the check-off deduction to its union for the period April 1975 to February, 1978 should be ordered to be paid to it since the 1st party had been keeping the check-off deductions. The 2nd party further contended that should the court decide against the reinstatement of the dismissed workers affected, they should be paid redundancy benefits. On its part, the 1st party stated that to order the reinstatement of the dismissed workers reread of re-engagement) would result in paying them for the period during which they did not work for the 1st party, and that any change of the Panel's award would be fraught with implementation difficulties. The party denied that the dismissed workers were entitled to the 10% bonus it paid to its workers who were in the service in December, 1975. On the question* of check-off deductions, the 1st party stated that payment of check-off deductions was made to three different union committees between 3rd November, 1975 and February, 1978. And on the question of redundancy, the 1st party contended that redundancy could not arise in the circumstances of the case. HELD: (Granting severance pay to the 2nd Party): 1. On Need for management not to be involved in the internal affairs of its workers' union - It is contrary to good trade union practice for management of company to get itself mixed-up in its workers' union's internal affairs in such a manner as to either subjugate the union to its own whims and caprices or to frighten the workers from making what they consider to be legitimate demands, whether or not such demands will be met? 2. On Whether act of company shutting factory gate on workers does not amount to lock-out- The action of a company in shutting the gates of its factory on its workers (union officials included), and the subsequent mass termination of the appointments of the workers, amount to a lock-out. 3. On When court will not enforce reinstatement of dismissed workers - The National Industrial court will not enforce the reinstatement of dismissed workers where in view of the time lag it is obvious that the company must have filled all the posts of the dismissed workers, and most of the dismissed workers might themselves have secured other jobs elsewhere. In such a situation, the court will order the company to make severance pay to the dismissed workers. 4. On Responsibility of party accusing company of non-payment of bonus to dismissed workers to ascertain the rules governing the grant of the bonus - Dismissed workers requesting that alleged bonus or ex-gratia payment, which the management made to other workers in the service of the company during the period of their dismissal, should be made to them should ascertain the rules governing the grant of the bonus before accusing the company of the non payment to them. 5. On Power of the National Industrial Court to rehear a case and take fresh evidence- By virtue of the provisions of section 26(1) of the Trade Disputes Decree No.7 of 1976, the National Industrial Court has power to rehear the whole case and take fresh evidence if need be. HON. 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