Download PDF
REPRESENTATIONS: 1. JAMES ODE ABAH Esq, for the Claimant/Appellant 2. A. K. SALAU Esq, holding the brief of ROTIMI SANNI J U D G M E N T INTRODUCTION The Appellant initiated this Appeal by a General Form of Complaint dated 24th August, 2015 and filed same day asking for the following reliefs: AN ORDER of this Honourable Court setting aside the award of the Industrial Arbitration Panel dated the 22nd of June 2015 in Respect of Trade Dispute No/IAP/HB/3878 Between the Maritime Workers Union of Nigeria and National Union of Hotels and Personal Services workers being in flagrant violation of the Third Schedule of the Trade Unions Act Cap T14 Laws of the Federation 2004 which clearly stipulates the jurisdictional scope of unions. b. A DECLARATION that workers and employees in Africa Worldwide Removals Limited falls within the Jurisdictional Scope of National Union of Hotels and Personal Services Workers as stipulated in the Third schedule Part B No. 12 of the Trade Unions Act Cap T14 Laws of the Federation 2004. c. A DECLARATION That the workers and employees in Africa Worldwide Removals Limited do not fall, within the Jurisdictional scope of Maritime workers union of Nigeria as stipulated in the Third schedule Part B No. 3 of the Trade Unions Act Cap T14 Laws of the Federation 2004. d. A DECLARATION that Africa Worldwide Removals Limited should recognize the National Union of Hotels and Personal Services Workers as the Union for her employees. e. AN ORDER setting aside the award of the Industrial Arbitration Panel that the jurisdictional scope of removal services, by virtue of the Third Schedule to the trade Union Act 2004 favours the Respondent rather that the Appellant being in flagrant violation of the Third Schedule of the Trade Unions Act Cap T14 Laws of the Federation 2014 which clearly stipulates the jurisdictional scope of unions. f. AN ORDER setting aside the award of the Industrial Arbitration Panel for remittance of all check -off dues stopped by the management of Africa Worldwide Removals Limited since October 2013 to the Maritime Workers Union of Nigeria. APPELLANT’S BRIEF OF FACTS The Appellant, a registered trade union under the Trade Unions Act Cap T14 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, alleges that they protect the interest of workers in hotels, restaurants, cafes, taverns and other drinking and eating places; laundries and laundries services, cleaning and dying, Barber and beauty shops, domestic services, portrait and commercial photographic studios, shops, offices and cleaning; Security Services, recreational and tourist organizations in the private and related Services. That the matter which culminated in this appeal started in 2011 when the Respondent came to Unionize employees in Africa Worldwide Removals Ltd (RC 606832). The Appellant then contended that the Respondent had no jurisdictional scope to unionize employees in Africa Worldwide Removals Ltd as the object and nature of their trade and business falls within the Appellant’s scope and not the Respondent’s scope. This led to a lot of disagreements and negotiations which made the then Minister of Labour and Productivity referred the matter to the Industrial Arbitration Panel in 2015. It is the decision of the Industrial Arbitration Panel that the Appellant herein appeals against. APPELLANT’S WRITTEN BRIEF In Appellant’s written brief, Appellant’s Counsel formulated a sole issue for determination, to wit: Whether the Honourable Industrial Arbitration Panel was right in declaring that the Jurisdictional scope of removal services, by virtue of the Third Schedule to the Trade Union Act 2004 favours the Respondent rather than the Appellant and that remittance to the Respondent of all the check-off dues stopped by the management of the Company since October 2013 be paid. BRIEF OF ARGUMENT Learned Counsel submits that the Honourable Arbitration Panel failed to appreciate the clear provisions of the Third Schedule to the Trade Union Act as it affects the jurisdictional scope of the Appellant and the Respondent. That it was on record before the Honourable Arbitration Panel that the Appellant has the jurisdictional scope to unionize employees of Africa Worldwide Removals Limited based on the nature of trade engaged by employees of the Applicant which involves the provision of domestic services that entails the moving and care of personal effects of its clients. Learned Counsel submits further that the Honourable Panel failed to evaluate the whole evidence before it as it erroneously came to the conclusion that the services of the Africa Worldwide Removals ltd was Limited to that of removal services without comprehending the fact that the company also provided domestic services. He refers this Honourable Court to Paragraph 6.3 of the award ( page 15 of the record). That there was evidence before the lAP that the Africa Worldwide Removals Ltd services provided domestic services to its clients. That the IAP failed to examine the evidence before it. Counsel posits that where a trial Court fails to examine and evaluate exhibits before it, an Appellate Court is bound to do so and make findings thereon. He refers Court to GONZEE (Nig) LTD V N.E.R.D.C ( 2005) 13 NWLR (PT 943) 634; SEC. IWO L.G V ADIGUN (1992) 6 NWLR (PT 250) 723; FSB INTERNATIONAL BANK LTD V IMANO NIG LTD (2000) 11 NWLR (PT 679) 620; IWUOHA V NOST LTD (2003) 8 NWLRPT 8221308; ABI V C.B.N ( 2012) 3 NWLR PT 1286 AT 1PP AT PGS 27-28 PARAS F-B. He therefore urged the Honourable Court not only to invoke its powers as provided in Section 8 (b) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 but to evaluate all the evidence before the panel Learned Counsel argues that the Jurisdictional Scope and area of jurisdiction of the Appellant as provided in of the Trade Unions Act Third schedule Part B Article No. 12 Cap T14 Laws of the Federation 2004 are as follows: Workers in the services involving the care of the person or his apparel. Hotels, restaurants, cafes, taverns and other drinking and eating places. Laundries and laundries services, cleaning and dying. Barber and beauty shops, domestic services, portrait and commercial photographic studios, shops, offices and cleaning. Security Services, recreational and tourist organizations in the private and related Services. (Underlining by Appellant’s Counsel) Flowing from the foregoing, Learned Counsel submits that it is the Appellant not the Respondent that has the jurisdictional scope to unionize the employees of Africa Worldwide Removal Ltd as their services entails domestic services and the moving and care of personal effects of their clients. He refers Court to page 261 of the record of Appeal. Learned Counsel while referring Court to of NATIONAL UNION OF ROAD TRANSPORT WORKERS V ROAD TRANSPORT EMPLOYERS (201) 10 NWLR PT 1307 AT 170 PP PG196 PARAS A-F invites the Court to give a holistic interpretation to the provisions of Trade Union Act above. He also maintains that the Supreme Court has held consistently that in interpreting the provisions of statutes, Judges should give effect to every word in the section to be interpreted, and where the words used are clear and unambiguous they must be given their plain, ordinary meaning, and so a provision should on no account be interpreted or construed to defeat its evident purpose. He refers Court AMADI V INEC (2013) 4NWLRPT 1345 AT 595 Pp PG 633 PARAS C-H Learned Counsel went on to list the services of Africa Worldwide Removals Limited as follows: a. International door to door services of personal effects, to and from Nigeria. b. Professional packing, crating and handling services for household goods. c. Motor vehicle transportation and storage services d. Domestic removal services within Nigeria for both residence and offices (door to door services. e. Storage for short and long term shipments. f. International ad-volorem insurance for all shipments g. Relocation services. He concludes that all the above services fell within the jurisdiction of the Appellant therefore it is the Appellant that ought to unionise the workers of Africa Worldwide Removals Limited not the Respondent. That the Respondent submission at the IAP that Africa Worldwide Removals Limited carries out business of forwarding and clearing and also part of SDV and Bollore Africa Logistics Nigeria Limited cannot be sustained as Africa Worldwide Removals Limited is not part of SDV or Bollore Africa Logistics Nigeria Limited as both companies are different companies whose services are engaged by Africa Worldwide Removals Limited. He therefore urged this Honourable Court to grant the reliefs sought in this Appeal. RESPONDENT’S BRIEF OF FACTS Respondent, a registered trade union duly registered under the Trade Unions Act Cap T14 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, on their part, while conceding that this Appeal arose from the decision of the Industrial Arbitration Panel which decision was in their favour, state that the dispute was on the question of whom among the parties herein has the right to organize the workers in the employment of AFRICA WORLDWIDE REMOVALS LIMITED for the purpose of collecting check-off dues and sundry. Africa Worldwide Limited (aka AGS Afrca Worldwide Removals Limited) is a global Company registered under the Nigerian Laws. That until November, 2013 when the Appellant suddenly emerged to attempt to take over, the Respondent was responsible for the organisation of its workers for the purposes of collective bargaining being in the jurisdictional scope of the Respondent as stated in Article 3, Part B of the Third Schedule of the Trade Unions Act, 2004 Cap T14 Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. That the jurisdictional scope of the Appellant is as stated in Third Schedule, Part B, Article 12 of the Trade Unions Act, Cap T14 Laws of the Federation, 2004 RESPONDENT’S BRIEF OF ARGUMENT Respondent did not formulate any issue for determination but rather chose to address the issue raised by the Appellant Respondent’s Counsel, while referring the Court to their Memorandum and Written Address before the Industrial Arbitration Panel at Pages 185 — 191, argues that the scope of jurisdiction of Appellant is as stated in the Third Schedule, Part B, Article 12 of the Trade Unions Act, 2004 as follows: NATIONAL UNION OF HOTELS AND PERSONAL SERVICES WORKERS Workers in Services involving the care the person or his apparel . Hotels, Restaurants, Cafes, Taverns and Drinking and Eating places. Laundries and laundry services, cleaning and dyeing. Barber and beauty shops, domestic services, portrait and commercial photographic studios, shops, offices and cleaning. Security services, recreational and tourist organization in the private sector and related services. Whereas the jurisdictional Scope of the Respondent is as stated in the Third Schedule, Part 8, Article 3 of the Trade Unions Act, Cap T14 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 as follows: MARITIME WORKERS UNION OF NIGERIA All workers in Nigeria Ports Authority and all person employed in the manning of oceangoing, inland waterways, coastal and Harbour vessels or crafts afloat. All dockworkers including workers engaged by shipping, clearing and forwarding agencies, but excluding managerial, professional and administrative staff Components: 1. Dock — Workers Union of Nigeria. 2. Nigeria Ports Authority Workers Union. 3. National Union of Seamen and Water Transport Workers. 4. Union of Shipping, Clearing and Forwarding Agencies Workers of Nigeria. (Underlining by Respondent’s Counsel) Learned Counsel on behalf of Respondent submits further that Africa Worldwide Removals Limited is a company which carries on worldwide business in shipping, clearing and forwarding, a situation which puts it under the provisions of Article 3, Part B of the Third Schedule of the Trade Unions Act, Cap T14 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004. Learned Counsel argues further that unlike Appellant’s Counsel who equates “domestic Services†with “domestic removal services within Nigeriaâ€, domestic services are services rendered by domestic servants i.e. stewards, cooks etc. whereas Domestic removal services within Nigeria covers activities and services rendered by the company to both individuals and corporate bodies in the removal of items and materials into and from their residences and offices located within Nigeria. That Africa Worldwide Removals Limited has a local (domestic) component as well as an international component as attested to by its descriptive cognomen of AFRICA WORLDWIDE REMOVALS LIMITED. Respondent Counsel submits that authorities cited by the Appellant have no relevance in this suit as nothing in the provisions contained in Part B, of the Third Schedule of the Labour Unions, Act, 2004 Laws of Federation of Nigeria or the activities of the Africa Worldwide Removals Limited makes it falls under Jurisdiction of the Appellant but jurisdiction of Respondent. Learned Counsel therefore urged this Honourable Court to affirm the findings and orders of the Tribunal which are in their favour and dismiss this appeal. APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF TO RESPONDENTS BRIEF OF ARGUMENT Learned Counsel on behalf of Appellant submits that the jurisdictional scope of trade unions in Nigeria is governed by the applicable law. He refers Court to NATIONAL UNION OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS WORKERS V NATIONAL UNION OF HOTELS AND PERSONAL SERVICES WORKERS (Unreported) delivered in June 1997 by Honourable Justice P.A Atilade of this Honourable Court. He reiterated that Africa Worldwide Removals Limited is not part of SDV or Bollore Africa Logistics Nigeria Limited as erroneously stated by the Respondent in their brief before Industrial Arbitration Panel as same is a different company registered by law with different legal personality. Appellant intends to rely on the certificate of incorporation of Africa Worldwide Removal Limited marked as appendix 1 in the Respondents memorandum before the Industrial Arbitration Panel. Moreso, that Nigeria Customs Service License to Carry on Business as a customs agent was issued to Bollore Africa Logistics Nigeria Limited and Transcap Limited not Africa Worldwide Removal Limited. Appellant relies on appendix 4 and 5 in the Respondent’s memorandum before the Industrial Arbitration Panel. That the nature of the business of Africa Worldwide Removal Limited includes: a. International door to door services of personal effects, to and from Nigeria. b. Professional packing, crating and handling services for household goods. c. Motor vehicle transportation and storage services d. Domestic removal services within Nigeria for both residences and offices (door to door services. e. Storage for short and long term shipments. f. International ad-volorem insurance for all shipments g. Relocation services. That appendix 7 which is a permit to operate Haulage Services and Road Haulage, issued to Africa Worldwide Removals also confirms the fact that its workers are engaged in rendering Services that involves the parking, moving and care of personnel effects of its clients such as boxes crates and also co-ordinates their movement to ensure that they reach the desired destination safely as that is what haulage services entails. He relies on appendix 7, 8 9 and 3 of memorandum before the Industrial Arbitration Panel. That Appendix 3 which is the Company Profile of Africa Worldwide Removal Limited clearly reveals the nature of trade of same as being within the jurisdictional scope of Appellant. COURT Having gone through the brief of arguments of both Counsel in this suit, this Court has distilled a sole issue for the just determination of this appeal, to wit: Whether given the relevant provisions of the Trade Union Act, it is the Appellant or the Respondent that has the jurisdictional scope over Africa Worldwide Removal Limited. This Honourable Court observes that the major bone of contention between the Appellant and the Respondent (who are two trade unions under the Trade Union Act) is the question of which of the unions has the jurisdictional power over the workers of Africa Worldwide Removal Limited for the purpose of collecting check-off dues and other sundries. Therefore, in other to resolve this, the best attitude available to the Court is to look at the provisions of the Trade Union Act as it relates to the jurisdictional scope of the Appellant and the Respondent coupled with evaluation of the facts before the Court. The jurisdictional scope of the Appellant (National Union of Hotel Personal Services Workers) are captured in the Trade Unions Act Third schedule Part B Article No. 12 Cap T14 Laws of the Federation 2004 as: Workers in the services involving the care of the person or his apparel. Hotels, restaurants, cafes, taverns and other drinking and eating places. Laundries and laundries services, cleaning and dying. Barber and beauty shops, domestic services, portrait and commercial photographic studios, shops, offices and cleaning. Security Services, recreational and tourist organizations in the private and related Services. on the other hand, the jurisdictional scope of the Respondent (Maritime Workers Union of Nigeria) are captured in Article 3, Part B of the Third Schedule of the Trade Unions Act, 2004 Cap T14 Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as: All workers in the Nigeria Ports Authority and all persons employed in the manning of Ocean going, Inland Waterways, Coastal and Harbour Vessels or crafts afloat. All dockworkers including workers engaged by shipping, clearing and forwarding agencies, but excluding managerial, professional and administrative staff Components: 1. Dock-Workers Union of Nigeria 2. Nigeria Ports Authority Workers Union 3, National Union of Seamen and Water Transport Workers 4. Union of Shipping, Clearing and Forwarding Agencies Workers of Nigeria. It is settled law that where the statute is clear and unambiguous, the Court is enjoined to give it its ordinary natural meaning and not give it an interpretation that will defeat its very purpose see SAVANNAH BANK (NIG) V AJILO(1989) I NWLR (PT 97) 323 Moreso, in MOBIL OIL (NIG) PLC V IAL 36 INC (2000) 6 NWLR (PT 659) 146 the Court held that a court should not make a restrictive, negative and purposeless interpretation of law. Therefore, in a bid to make a broader, purposeful and unrestricted interpretation of the law as it relates to the powers of the Appellant and the Respondent pertaining to their jurisdictional scope over Africa Worldwide Removal Limited, the Court shall proceed to look at the Memorandum of Association of the company to decipher under which union, in a broader sense, the company ought to fall under. From the face of Appendix 9 which is the Memorandum of Association of Africa Worldwide Removal Limited, the object of the company is stated as follows: 3. The objects for which the company is established are. (1)To carry on the trade of international removers, storers, packers, hauliers and carriers of household goods and personal effects of every description (2) To acquire, construct, manage depots, warehouses and to erect, construct, lay down, enlarge, ulter and maintain any building works and machinery necessary or convenient for the company business (3) To carry on and maintain elsewhere the storage, warehousing, packing, removal, carrying and delivery of household goods, person effects and chattels of every description (4) To carry on the trade of business of shipping, chartering, forwarding, transport, and custom clearing and commission agents, carting contractors and agent superintendents, packers, hauliers,, warehousemen, proprietors of warehouses and vehicles and providers of accommodation or assistance to travelers (5) To construct, hire, purchase, take on lease or otherwise, acquire and work any ship and vessel of any class, wharf, pier, dock, transport terminal buildings works capable of being advantageously used in connection with the business of the company and to enter into contracts for the carriage of goods by any means and either by its own vessel and other forms of transportation of by the vessel and mode of transport of others. (6) To insure the vessels and other property of the company in any manner and to acquire concession of license for the establishment and workings of the hiring of ship or other vessel between any part of the world for the formation of working of any dock or other work or for the working of any…………… (7) …………………………….. (8) …………………………….. (9) …………………………….. (10) …………………………… (11) …………………………… (12) …………………………… (13) …………………………… (14) …………………………… The question that bores the mind of the Court is given the objects of Africa Worldwide Removal Limited as stated in the Memorandum of Association, coupled with the facts before the Court, whether the services of the Africa Worldwide Removal Limited are such that falls under ‘Union of shipping, Clearing and Forwarding Agencies Workers of Nigeria’ or Such that borders on ‘services involving the care of the person or his apparel’ A community reading of all the objects of the company ( see Memorandum of Association) from 1 – 14 reveals that even though some of their activities fall within the jurisdictional scope of the Appellant herein, the bulk of the activities of the company fall within the jurisdiction scope of the Respondent, and I so hold Therefore, from the evidence before this Honourable Court, this Court finds and I so hold that even though Africa Worldwide Removal Limited is domesticated in Nigeria, the bulk of their job involves the movement of taking and shipping away outside Nigeria. It is immaterial if given the exigencies, they choose to engage the services of others or do it themselves. I am of the view that given the relevant provisions of the Trade Union Act cited above, it is the jurisdictional scope of the Respondent that best fits the nature of the business of the African Worldwide Removal Limited, and I so hold Consequently, this Court shall not disturb the decision of the Industrial Arbitration Panel on this matter. Therefore, the decision of the Industrial Arbitration Panel on this matter is hereby upheld and the appeal dismissed. Judgment is entered accordingly. …….………………………………… HON. JUSTICE M. N. ESOWE