Download PDF
<p class="Body" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify; line-height:150%"><u><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%">REPRESENTATION<o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify; line-height:150%"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%">Mr Biodun Arijesuyo, for the appellant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify; line-height:150%"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%">Mr Kolade Akinyele, for the respondent<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify; line-height:150%"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span lang="DE" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:DE">JUDGMENT</span></u><u><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%"><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">This matter is a referral from the Permanent Secretary Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity under delegated powers and functions from the Honourable Minister of Labour and Productivity.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">Sequel to that referral, issues were identified as areas of dispute for determination by the National Industrial Court (NIC).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">The referral instrument dated 2<sup>nd</sup> of November 2015 was sent to this Court by a letter dated 5<sup>th</sup> of November 2015. By the referral instrument, the matter in dispute has the following terms of references:</span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify"><i><span lang="DE" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:DE">“</span></i><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">To inquire into the trade dispute existing between Steel and Engineering Workers Union of Nigeria (SEWUN) and Golden Silk Industry Nigeria Limited over the following points in dispute; <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:1.25in;text-align:justify; text-indent:-25.35pt;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">i.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 115%">Non recognition of Trade Union <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:1.25in;text-align:justify; text-indent:-25.35pt;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ii.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 115%">Management Operating without registered condition of service<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:1.25in;text-align:justify; text-indent:-25.35pt;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">iii.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 115%">Unfair labour practice by the management”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">The Industrial Arbitration P</span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:IT">anel (</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">IAP) had on 19<sup>th</sup> September 2014 made an Award in favour of the present respondent in which the instant appellant objected through a notice of objection dated the 14<sup>th</sup> of October 2015 on the following grounds.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l3 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(1)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">The IAP misdirected itself when the panel failed to give a community reading to the question of the first party jurisdictional scope as stated in Trade Unions Act (TUA) Cap T14 Vis-a-vis the economic activities of the 2<sup>nd</sup> party/appellant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l3 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(2)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">The IAP misdirected itself to have assumed without any proven evidence that the 2<sup>nd</sup> party had 41 (Forty one) workers who are members of the 1<sup>st</sup> party.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l3 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(3)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">The IAP erred in law by assuming jurisdiction in respect of this matter when the tribunal failed to consider the provision of the law regarding parties before the industrial arbitration tribunal.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l3 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(4)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">The IAP erred in law for having delivered the award after the statutory 3 months period and having not furnished the 2<sup>nd</sup> party with the authentic copy of the award but only forwarded the Notice of Award on the 2<sup>nd</sup> party on the 13<sup>th</sup> of October 2015 contrary to the provisions of section 294(1) of 1999 Constitution.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l3 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(5)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">The IAP erred in law for continuing to adjudicate in respect of this matter after the expiration of the statutory period of 21 (twenty one) days prescribed by law.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l3 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(6)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">The Honourable tribunal erred in law for ordering the management of the 2<sup>nd</sup> party to forthwith recognize the 1<sup>st</sup> party being the Trade Union whose jurisdictional scope covers the junior workers of the 2<sup>nd</sup> party and an order directing 2<sup>nd</sup> party to resume discussions with the 1<sup>st</sup> party on behalf of it junior staff which is contrary to the provision of section 40 of the 1999 constitution. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l3 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(7)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">Parties filed and exchanged their respective pleadings in this appeal on referral. The appellant brief of agreement was filed on 31<sup>st</sup> March 2016 and dated the same date. In his own submission learned appellant counsel upon the introduction, statements of facts, review of evidence on record including the cross examination, proceeded to the treatment of the issues on the grounds of his objection to the award.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">On ground one, learned counsel contended that Part B of the Third Schedule to the TUA Cap T14 LFN 2004 on the jurisdictional scope of the appellant was not properly appraised by the panel before arriving at its decision as plastic was covered. The jurisdictional scope of the respondent he contended does not cover junior staff or junior employees of the appellant. Failure of the panel to visit the <i>locus in </i></span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 115%;mso-ansi-language:IT">quo</span></i><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%"> to know and have firsthand information about the economic activity of the appellant is fatal, counsel opined.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">On ground two, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the evidence on record about 41 members being workers of the 2<sup>nd</sup> party does not have a basis for such hearing and conclusion.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">On ground three, counsel submitted that the issue of jurisdiction was not addressed by the IAP as section 54 of the TUA and section 48 of the Trade Disputes Act (TDA) were not applied as section 54 according to counsel of the National Industrial Court Act relates to parties before the Court and not the IAP.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">On ground four, counsel argued that section 294(1) of the 1999 Constitution was breached as the copy of the award was only forwarded on the 13<sup>th</sup> of October 2015 as the appellant is entitled to a copy seven days after the delivery of the award.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">On ground five, counsel submitted that the proceedings of the IAP conducted after 21 days prescribe by law amounts to a nullity in view of the breach of section 13(1) of the TDA Cap T8 LFN 2004.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">On ground six, counsel submitted that the order of the IAP mandating the appellant to resume discussion with the respondent is contrary to section 40 of the 1999 Constitution which borders on freedom of association, as no person can be forced to join an association or union.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">Against the background of the above grounds of objection, the appellant counsel formulated the following issues for determination namely.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify; text-indent:-.5in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">1.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 115%">Whether the arbitration proceedings at the industrial tribunal complied with the laid down provisions of the law as regards the time within which to hear the matter and deliver judgment ( distilled from grounds 4 and 5).<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify; text-indent:-.5in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">2.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 115%">Whether the Honourable tribunal considering Part B of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Schedule to the Trade Unions Act Cap T14 (the lack of jurisdictional scope of the respondent over the appellant) and section 40 of the 1999 Constitution was right to order the management of the 2<sup>nd</sup> party/appellant to forthwith recognize the 1<sup>st</sup> party/respondent as a trade union particularly the unestablished 41 workers of the 2<sup>nd</sup> party/appellant claimed by the 1<sup>st</sup> party to be their members (distilled from grounds 1, 2 and 6)<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify; text-indent:-.5in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">3.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 115%"> Whether the industrial tribunal ought to assume jurisdiction in the first instance (distilled from ground 3)<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">On issue one, learned counsel submitted that section 13(1) of the TDA Cap T18 LFN 2004 gave a mandatory period of 21 days from date of commencement of proceedings to the date of award by the IAP. Counsel urged the Court to nullify and void the award made after the 6<sup>th</sup> of May 2014 in this instant case when the time of 21 days allowed by the law has lapsed. Counsel called in aid the cases of <i>Madukolu v. Nkemdilin</i> [1962] All NLR 587 at 594. Counsel drew the C</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:FR">ourt</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">’s attention to the word “SHALL” used in section 13(1) to command,</span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%; mso-ansi-language:IT"> mandat</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 115%">oriness, imperativeness and compulsion.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">On issue two, learned counsel stated in his submission that the memorandum of association and article of association of the appellant do not have steel and alluminuim but rather plastic. Consequently learned counsel posited that the activities of the appellant fall within jurisdictional scope of the National Union of Chemical, Footwear, Rubber, Leather and Non-</span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:IT">metallic </span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">P</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:FR">roduct</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">s Employees. The refusal, counsel stated, of the tribunal to accede to the request of the appellant to visit the <i>locus in </i></span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:IT">quo</span></i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%"> to determine what the appellant does robbed the IAP the opportunity to get the truth and fact of economic activities of the appellant. The workers, he stated cannot be mandated to join any union.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">It is the submission of counsel that the testimony of Comrade Fabian Elaigwu whose witness on oath came in after close of evidence and without the appellant having the opportunity of cross-examining him amounts to a denial of fair hearing as this amount to the travesty of justice. Counsel submitted that the IAP relying on the evidence of Mr. Elaigwu by a Punch Newspaper publication after close of evidence as publication in Newspaper in not conclusive state of an affair. Moreover, learned counsel urged the Court to hold that the IAP cannot foresee or coerce any worker to join any association as it has done in one of the orders made as an award.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">On issue three, counsel submitted that the IAP has no jurisdiction amongst the parties as parties are enjoined to keep the course of justice. He stated also that there is no nexus between the workers as there is no trade dispute as per the answers given in respect of this fact. The appellant can furnish the Court with evidence to show the contrary.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">In conclusion, learned counsel urged the Court to grant all his reliefs as the economic activity of the appellant does not fall within the jurisdictional competence of the r</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:PT">espondent.</span><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:115%"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">In his reaction, the learned respondent counsel Mr. Kolade Akinyele, after the introduction and statement of facts adopted the three issues formulated by the appellant for determination by the C</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:FR">ourt</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">.</span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">In his argument, learned counsel referred to his notice of preliminary objection raised in this appeal as to the jurisdiction of this Court to hear this appeal considering the time lag in the filing of the objection to the award by the appellant and the time of filling of the appellant’s brief of argument. Learned counsel repeated his argument in the notice of preliminary objection separately filed on the 22<sup>nd</sup> of August 2016 and dated the same date.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">In arguing issue one so formulated by the respondent learned counsel, reference was made to section 13(1) of the Trade Disputes Act Cap T18 LFN 2004. Counsel submitted that the date of constitution of the IAP was not apparent on the record but the date of first sitting of the panel from the record is 15<sup>th</sup></span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:IT"> April 2014.</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">The hearing notice preceding the 15<sup>th</sup> April 2014 hearing date was not included in the record compiled by the court; consequently, the argument of the appellant cannot be anchored on any part of the record. Learned counsel further referred the Court to the provision of section 13(1)(a) of the TDA Cap T18 LFN 2004 and the relevant paragraph of the award dated 19<sup>th</sup> September 2014 particularly at page 4 paragraph 9 where time was extended by the Minister for the making of the arbitral award and the proceedings thereof.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">Counsel stated also the manner or way of seeking permission of the Minister for the extension of time of the proceedings of the IAP is not stated in the Act and since the award has adequately taken care of that objection, it has been put to rest. Learned counsel also referred the Court to section 294(1) of the 1999 Constitution on the delivery of judgment by Court established under the 1999 constitution (as amended) within 3 months after the adoption of final written addresses by counsel. In that context, counsel argued that since IAP is not a court created by 1999 Constitution therefore, that provision of section 294(1) of the C</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:FR">onstitution do</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">es not apply. Moreover, assuming, he stated, that section applies, the appellant has not shown how such provision or default has adversely affected him in terms of miscarriage of justice. Counsel contended that since the appellant has not proven section 294(5) of the Constitution, he cannot in any way rely on it.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">On issue two so formulated, learned counsel contended that the issue of jurisdictional scope of the appellant has been thrashed out by the IAP verdict and award which was based on the business activities of the appellant as captured under the memorandum and article of association of the appellant, and under Part A of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Schedule to the TUA. The object clause of the appellant from the record and exhibits at the IAP falls within the jurisdictional scope of the appellant</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:PT"> as voluntari</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">ness in terms of which union to belong to exist within the rules and regulations as stipulated by law of trade unions. Counsel referred the court to the decision of this Court in the case of <i>Precision Electrical & Related Equipment Senior Staff Association (PERESSA) v. Senior Staff Association of Statutory Corporation or Government Owned Companies</i> [2009] 14 NLLR (Pt. 39) at 306 and <i>NUSDEE v. SEWUN</i> [2013] 35 NLLR (Pt 106) at 606.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">Counsel submitted that where workers show enough interest in a union for the purpose of protecting their rights, no employer should create any obstacle in the way of such unionization. Counsel cited the case of <i>Management of Dangote Industries Ltd v. NUFBTE</i> [2009] 14 NLLR (Pt. 37).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">Counsel also referred the Court to section 5(3)(a) and (b) of the Labour Act which seeks to give recognition to trade union and posited that since the junior workers of the appellant are interested in unionising and the jurisdictional scope fails within the union of the workers in the appellant, the IAP order is valid and properly made and he so urged the Court to so hold.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">On issue three, learned counsel relied on the combined and community reading of section 48 of the TDA Cap T18 LFN 2004, section 54 of the Trade Unions Act and section 54(1) and (4) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 and posited that the definition of the word </span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:DE">“</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">t</span><span lang="SV" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:SV">rade </span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">d</span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:IT">ispute</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">” gives the jurisdiction both to the IAP and this appellate Court to entertain this matter. Learned counsel argued further that the restrictive meaning of the word </span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:DE">“</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">t</span><span lang="SV" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:SV">rade </span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">d</span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:IT">ispute</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">” used by the appellant counsel should be jettisoned. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">Learned counsel relied on the case of <i>Mix and Baker Flour Mill Industries Ltd v. NUFBTE</i> [2004] 1 NLLR at 247 to the effect that a trade union has the right to unionise its willing and eligible workers.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">Learned counsel in his final submission urged this court to confirm the IAP award and dismiss the objection of the respondent.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">We have carefully listened to the counsel respective submissions in their briefs. We equally perused the records and the authorities cited in respect of their various submissions. It should be recalled that the respondent in this appeal filed a notice of objection on the 22<sup>nd</sup> of August 2016 challenging the competence of the compiled record of appeal on the ground that the said record is incapable of sustaining the appeal as constituted. The said objection was dismissed by this Court on the 29<sup>th</sup> of September 2016. We are of the view that it will serve no useful purpose delving into the arguments of the respondent in his written address or brief on the same objection that has been dismissed by this Court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">Reading through the six grounds of objections by the appellant and the three issues distilled for the C</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:FR">ourt</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">’s determination, it is crystal clear that the arguments in this case and of this referral rest on:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo8"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">1)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">The issue of compliance with the time limit for the commencement and giving of award by the IAP.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo8"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">2)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">The jurisdictional scope of the appellant under Part B of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Schedule to the TUA Cap T14 LFN 2004.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo8"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">3)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">The jurisdiction of the IAP to entertain this matter <i>ab initio</i> in view of whether or not it is a trade dispute.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">The appellant squarely located his arguments on these issues.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">We have carefully incorporated the arguments of the appellant counsel against the background of the terms of reference in the instrument of referral and juxtaposing same with the award of the IAP.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">On the issue of 21 days time limit provided by section 13(1)(a) of the Trade Disputes Act Cap T8 LFN 2004 of which the appellant made a heavy weather on, it is found at pages 4 - 5, paragraph 9 of the award dated 19<sup>th</sup> September 2014 as follows:-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify"><i><span lang="DE" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:DE">“</span></i><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">…The honourable minister duly granted extension of time for the tribunal to make the award. Thus the minister having extended the time within which the tribunal has to make its award, the tribunal has and retains its competence to hear and determine this case and to make appropriate award…”</span></i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">The objection of the appellant on the issue of non-compliance with section 13(1)(a) of the TDA Cap T8 LFN 2004 has been adequately addressed and settled by the IAP. The TDA in section 13(1)(a) empowers the Minister of Labour to extend the time within which the IAP can make its award. If the appellant still thinks that there was no such time extension granted by the Minister of Labour, the onus is on it to prove that there was actually no time extension granted the IAP by the mInister of Labour. This, the appellant has not done. We are accordingly satisfied that the IAP acted within the law when it sought for and got the time extension from the Minister of Labour to make its award outside of the 21 days stipulated by the TDA.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">The appellant also alluded to the fact in his submission that the IAP did not comply with section 294(1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended. The quarrel borders on the fact that between the time the final written address of learned counsel was adopted and the time the notice of award was given, it was well over 3 months which according to him was in breach of the provision of section 294(1) of the 1999 C</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:FR">onstitution</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">, as amended.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">Looking at section 294(1) of the Constitution, the emphasis there is on “Every court established under the C</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:FR">onstitution</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">”. We have looked once again on section 6 and other relevant portions of the 1999 C</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:FR">onstitution. </span><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">The IAP is not a direct creation of the said Constitution. The IAP is a direct creation of a statute and in this instant case the Trade Disputes</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%; mso-ansi-language:FR"> Act Cap T8 LFN 2004.</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%"> An arbitral tribunal is not a court, as we held in <i>UTC Foods Plc v. NUFBTE</i> unreported Suit No. NICN/ABJ/411/2016 the judgment of which was delivered on 5th December 2016. In any event the TDA in section 13(1)(b) enjoins that the IAP sends the award to the Minister of Labour. It is the Minister of Labour who is to disclose the award to the disputants. The reason for this is that under section 13(3) of the TDA, the Minister of Labour has the power to remit the award to the IAP for reconsideration. See <i>AbdulRaheem v. Oloruntoba-Oju</i> [2006] 15 NWLR (Pt. 1003) 581. It is accordingly foolhardy to think as the appellant does that given all of this section 294(1) of the 1999 Constitution is applicable to the IAP. Moreover, by the provision of section 294(4) the decision arrived at and delivered after 3 months will not be invalidated by the mere fact that it was so delivered unless the non-compliance occasioned a miscarriage of justice to the complaining party. Consequently, in the absence of any complaint in that regard by the affected party, such argument cannot stand and we so hold.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">The appellant has also contended strenuously and vehemently too that the jurisdictional scope of the respondent does not cover the business activities of the appellant to warrant the IAP ordering the junior staff or workers to join a particular trade union for the protection of their right. The IAP, in reaching its award and decision took pains to peruse the memorandum and article of association of the appellant. Part A of the Third Schedule to the Trade Unions Act recognizes the respondent union as a trade union. Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution has guaranteed freedom of association to citizens. This right can, of course be exercised within legal limits and prescriptions. Even though, it is exercise voluntarily by individuals such persons must utilize such freedom within the jurisdictional scope as outline and permitted by the T</span><span lang="SV" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:SV">rade </span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">U</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:FR">nion</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">s Act as enshrine in the Third Schedule, Parts A, B. and C. It must be emphasized that the jurisdictional scope of the t</span><span lang="SV" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%; mso-ansi-language:SV">rade </span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 115%">union gives a qualified right of membership of such union to members as no right is absolute in law. In that vein, this court in the case of <i>M</i></span><i><span lang="FR" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:FR">anagement</span></i><i><span lang="FR" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%"> </span></i><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">of Tuyil Nigeria Ltd v. National Union of C</span></i><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%; mso-ansi-language:IT">hemical</span></i><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">, Footwear, Rubber, Leather and Non-</span></i><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:IT">metallic </span></i><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">P</span></i><i><span lang="FR" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:FR">roduct</span></i><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">s Employees</span></i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%"> [2009] 14 NLLR (Pt. 37) at 109 held as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify"><i><span lang="DE" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:DE">“</span></i><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">Once any of the trade unions listed in the Third Schedule of the Trade unions Act exhibits enough intention to be recognized by an employer by indicating its willingness to unionize workers who are eligible to be its members, an employer is obliged to accord recognition and not pose obstacle in the way of such unionization”<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></i></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">A community reading of section 5(3) of the Labour Act and sections 5(7) and 24(1) of the Trade Unions Act gives ample opportunity to employers to recognize trade unions in an unfettered manner by allowing its workers access to their trade unions in terms of membership.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">We have once again considered the award of the IAP in line with the extant laws applicable in the instant case.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">The junior workers of the appellant by jurisdictional scope belong to the respondents union. This finding of the IAP by all standard, in our considered view is not perverse. The jurisdictional scope of the respondent union covers the junior workers of the appellant and this workers should be allowed the access and the opportunity to unionise within the permissible legal parameters and l</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%; mso-ansi-language:DE">imit</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 115%">ations for the purpose of protecting their rights. See the case of <i>Management of Dangote Industries Ltd v. NUFBTE</i> [2009] 14 NLLR (Pt. 37) at 59.<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">On the contention relating to the jurisdiction of the IAP on the grounds that the respondent not being a worker or employee has no power to declare a trade dispute, We think this issue needs to be perceived from proper perspective. The respondent here is a union. It exists for the protection of its members. Section 54(1) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 by its definition of trade dispute contemplates a dispute between employers and employees, organization and a federation which are connected with employment, terms of employment, conditions of work and non-employment. This means the dispute between workers’ respective organizations</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:FR"> on condition</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">s and terms of work is a trade dispute. The terms of reference in this referral stem from the non-recognition of trade union, management that operates without registered condition of service and unfair labour practice by the management. It has been held in the case of <i>Mix and Bake flour Mills Industries Ltd v. NUFBTE</i> [2004] 1 NLLR at 247.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify"><i><span lang="DE" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:DE">“</span></i><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">Once a trade union indicates its willingness to unionise workers who are eligible to be its members, an employer is obliged to accord recognition and not pose obstacle in the way of such unionization.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">We</span></i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%"> think that this case is on all fours on this point with the instant case. In refusing to accord recognition to the respondent to unionise eligible members in the appellant company or industry, this therefore led to an industrial dispute which formed the basis of the trade dispute properly adjudicated by the IAP in accordance with the due process as outlined under the TDA Cap T8 LFN 2004.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">Based on this Court’s findings, reasoning and conclusions as reflected in this judgment, we find no merit in the appeal of the appellant. The appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed. The IAP award made on the 19<sup>th</sup> of September 2015 is hereby confirmed.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%">We make no order as to cost.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%"> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">__________________________<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip Ph.D<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">Presiding Judge<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:339.75pt"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%"> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%">_______________________ </span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:DE"> </span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%"> _______________________<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%"> Hon. Justice M. </span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 115%;mso-ansi-language:DE">N. Esowe Hon. Justice P.</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%"> O. Lifu<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span lang="DE" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:DE"> </span><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:115%"> Judge Judgee</span><o:p></o:p></p>