Download PDF
FEDERATED MOTOR INDUSTRIES (DIVISION OF UAC LTD) AND AUTOMOBILE, BOATYARD, TRANSPORT EQUIPMENT AND ALLIED WORKERS' UNION (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/1/79 DATE OF JUDGMENT FRIDAY, 23rd NOVEMBER, 1979 LABOUR LAW Collective agreement - Principle of "no work - no pay" contained therein - When workers are in breach of the terms thereof- Whether workers are entitled to pay. LABOUR LAW Employment - Employers prerogative to decide whom to employ - Whether absolute LABOUR LAW Trade dispute - Workers' union's demand for the removal of their employer's manager - Whether constitutes a trade dispute. LABOUR LAW Strike - "Go-slow" action by workers - Whether constitutes a strike? LABOUR LAW Strike - Striking workers - Whether entitled to pay for period of strike - Section 32A(l)(a), Trade Disputes Act (as amended). LABOUR LAW Severance pay - "One week" and "one month" in calculation thereof- What comprises. LABOUR LAW Severance pay - Workers whose appointments were unlawfully terminated in consequence of a strike -Whether entitled to severance pay. TRADE DISPUTE Worker's union's demand for removal of employer's Manager - Whether constitutes a trade dispute. ISSUE: Whether the Industrial Arbitration Panel was not wrong to have ordered the Appellant to reinstate workers whose employments were terminated as a result of the strike by the workers. FACTS: The Appellant's case was that on 3rd February, 1978, members of the Respondent Union, through their leaders, approached the Appellants to demand the removal of the Works Manager, Mr. F. A Kokodoko, who was then on leave. The Appellants did not accede to the request and when the Works Manager resumed duty on 8th February, 1978, the workers embarked on a "go-slow" action. The situation continued till 14th February, 1978 when the Respondent withdrew their demand for the removal of the Works Manager. The Appellants, however, insisted on the principle of "no work, no pay" for the period of industrial action, but this was resented by the Respondent. The Respondent maintained that it did not embark on "go-slow" action and demanded full pay. The matter was referred by the Commissioner for Labour to the Industrial Arbitration Panel which in its award ordered the Appellant to re-instate the workers whose employments were terminated as a result of the strike subject to some conditions, but upheld the principle of "no work, no pay" for the period of the strike. The Appellant consequently filed an objection to the award of the IAP before the National Industrial Court. At the court, the Appellant contended that it had the prerogative to decide whom to employ and could terminate the service of an employee provided it gave the requisite notice or made payment in lieu of notice. In reply, the Respondent contended that the workers who were kept outside the premises of the Appellant's company were still in the company's employment and that the workers did not voluntarily terminate their employment with the company. They contended that the principle of "no work, no pay" was arbitrarily applied. HELD: (Granting severance pay to the Respondent): 1. On Whether a "go-slow " action constitutes a strike - Under section 37 of the Trade Disputes Decree 1976, a strike includes "cessation of work", that is, working at a speed less than usual. A "go-slow" action constitutes a strike action. 2. On Whether workers are entitled to be paid during strike action - By virtue of section 32A(l)(a) of the Trade Disputes (Amendment) Decree No. 54 of 1977, any worker who takes part in a strike action shall not be paid for the period For which he did not work. Moreover, where the Collective Agreement between workers and their employer contains the principle of "no work, no pay", the workers are not entitled to any pay when they act in breach of the terms of the Collective Agreement. 3. On Limitations to prerogative of employer to decide whom to employ - Although, it is the prerogative of the employer to decide whom to employ, the principle is however not absolute within the context of a trade dispute. Moreso, when the workers whose re-engagement is being considered have served the employer previously. 4. On Whether workers' union's demand for the removal of their employer's manager constitutes trade dispute - Official inter-action between workers or their representatives and the employer's manager in a factory, is perforce connected with the workers terms and conditions :f employment. Therefore, the workers' union's demand for the removal of a manager constitutes a trade dispute. 5. On Whether workers whose appointments are unlawfully terminated as a result of a strike action are entitled to severance pay - Workers whose appointments are unlawfully terminated in consequence of a strike action are entitled to severance pay. 6. On What comprises one week undone month in the calculation of severance pay - In the calculation of severance pay, one week comprises six working days, and one month comprises twenty-six working days. 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