Download PDF
NIGERIANPETROLEUMREFININGCOMPANYLIMITED AND PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS SENIOR STAFF ASSOCIATION (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/3/82 DATE OF JUDGEMENT FRIDAY, 9TH SEPTEMBER, 1983 LABOUR LAW Interpretation of Statutes - Headings of statutes -Usefulness of in the interpretation of statutes. LABOUR LAW Salary negotiation - Whether the Incomes Policy Guidelines, 1980 - Prohibits salary negotiation -Continuing validity of. LABOUR LAW Productivity, Prices and Incomes Board Act, 1977 -Effect of the Economic Stabilization (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1982 - Whether the former invalidated by the latter. LABOUR LAW Productivity, Prices and Incomes Board Act, 1977 -Incomes Policy Guidelines, 1980 made thereunder -Continuing validity of - Effect of the Economic Stabilization (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1982 (No.2) thereon. ISSUES: 1. Should the headings of Articles 4 and 7 of Exhibit "A" be construed as forming part of the provisions of the Articles? 2. Whether in view of the promulgation of the Economic Stabilization Act, 1982, the Incomes Policy Guidelines made under the Productivity, Prices and Incomes Board Act, 1977 have lost their legal validity and, therefore, no longer enforceable in law. FACTS: The parties entered into a Collective Agreement dated 9th June, 1981 and a dispute arc to the correct interpretation of Articles 4(b) and 7 of the Collective Agreement (Exhibit A) The dispute was then referred to the National Industrial Court by the Minister of Labour. It was the contention of the First party that Article 7 was binding on both parties. While it was the contention of the second party that Article 4(b) of Exhibit "A" was binding c: parties, to the exclusion of Article 7, The first party also argued that being a company owned by the Government the s; party was bound by the Incomes Policy Guidelines, 1982 - Exhibit "H". It was the second party's case that the issue between the parties was mainly that of negotiation, which was not affected by the Federal Government's wage/freeze Guide and that salary negotiation was preserved by Article 4(b) of the Collective Agreement between the parties. The second party contended that salary negotiation is different from salary review, and that salary review under Article 7 is a one party affair - an exclusive prerogative management and an exercise in which the second party does not interfere or participate. It was argued that salary negotiation was taken care of by Article 4(b) of the Collective Agreement and that Article 4(b) is mutually exclusive of Article 7; is specific and is not subject to Article 7. HELD: (Upholding the Appellant's submission): 1. On Effect of the Economic Stabilization (Temporary Provisions) Act, 19821 Productivity, Prices and Incomes Board Act, 1977- The Economic Stabilization (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1982 is a pure/, enactment and of a temporary nature. The Act has no bearing or effect on the Productivity, Prices and Incomes Board Act, 1977 whatsoever. The 1982 A not invalidate the provisions of the 1977 Act relating to the Income.-Guidelines made under the latter. 2. On Continuing validity of the Income Policy Guidelines, 1980 - The Income Policy Guidelines made under Section 4(1) of the Productivity, Prices and Incomes Board Act, 1977 still constitute a valid statutory instrument, a breach of which carries the imposition of the appropriate penalties under section of the Act. In the instant case, the first party was obliged to comply with the provisions of the guidelines in its relationship with the second party. 3 ON Whether the Incomes Policy Guidelines, 1980 prohibits salary negotiation - There is nothing in the Incomes Policy Guidelines specifically prohibiting salary negotiation, but any agreement on salary increases outside the limits set by the incomes Policy Guidelines is illegal, null and void. 4 On Usefulness of headings interpreting statutes - Although, headings do not necessarily form part of a legislation, the limitation does not appear to prevent such headings from being referred to as aids in solving an ambiguity. In this case, the court adopted a flexible approach to the use that might made of the headings of Articles 4 and 7 of Exhibit "A". 5 On Usefulness of headings in interpreting statutes- In many cases the long title of a statute supply the key to the meaning. Where something is doubtful or ambiguous, the long title may be looked upto, to resolve the doubt or ambiguity, but in the absence of doubt or ambiguity the passage under construction must be taken to mean what it says, so that if its meaning be clear, that meaning is not to be narrowed or restricted by reference to the long title. HON. JUSTICE (CHIEF) P.A. ATILADE PRESIDENT, DR O.I. ODUMOSU MEMBER, S.O. KOKU,ESQ. MEMBER, DR. E.C. IWUJI MEMBER, Z.M. BELLO MEMBER