Download PDF
NIGERIAN UNION OF CIVIL SERVICE TYPISTS, STENOGRAPHIC AND ALLIED STAFF AND 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OGUN STATE 2 GOVERNOR OF OGUN STATE (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/IM/82 DATE OF JUDGEMENT THURSDAY, 17TH FEBRUARY, 1983 CIVIL SERVICE Entitlement of workers - Unpaid workers' entitlement -Liability of State Government therefor- Where not disputed - Best course of action by State Government - Need for legal advisers of the State Government to advise thereon - Remedies available to workers. LABOUR LAW Entitlement of workers - National Industrial Court -Judgment of- Judgment on amount due to workers from employer - Whether constitutes judgment debt- Right of workers and workers' union to recover -Whether employer can deny its liability - Courts where same can be enforced. LABOUR LAW Entitlement of workers - Unpaid workers' entitlement -Liability of State Government therefor- Where not disputed - Best course of action by State Government - Need for legal advisers of the State Government to advise thereon - Remedies available to workers. ISSUE: Whether the Applicant can enforce the judgment of the court in Suit No: NIC delivered on 12th day of March 1981 against the Respondents. FACTS: By an application dated 5th April 1982, the Applicants prayed for an order of the National Industrial Court directing the enforcement of the judgment of the court delivered on 12th day of March 1981 in favour of the Applicants. The application was supported by a 33-paragraph affidavit. The Respondents filed a 17- paragraph counter-affidavit in opposition to the application. The gravamen of the application was that the court should order the Respondents, in their official capacities as persons in apparent control of the Ogun State Government, to members of the Applicant union the new scales of salary ordered by the court judgment given on the 12th day of March, 1981 in Suit No: NIC/1/80. By the judgment, all the Governments in the Federation were required to pay the new scales of salary with effect from 1st April 1980, and not from 1ST August, 1981, as proposed Respondents. The Applicant contended that the non-implementation of the Award fully by the Ogun State Government was deliberate, and that some other state governments had complied with the order of the court. On their part, the Respondents contended that the state government had no funds:: implement the court's judgment. HELD; (Directing the Applicant to claim the judgment sum in the High Court Magistrate’s Court): 1. On Whether amount due to workers from employer constitutes judgment and whether employer would be estopped from denying its liability therefor - ] The amount due to workers from their employer based on the judgment National Industrial Court constitutes a judgment debt payable by the employer, and the employer would be estopped from denying its liability for payment of each individual judgment debt to the workers. 2. On Right of workers to recover judgment debts owed to them by their employer Members of a workers' union are at liberty to file claims, either individual collectively, in the appropriate High Court or Magistrate's Court for the recovery of the sums owed to them by their employer arising from the judgment of the National Industrial Court given in their favour. TRADE DISPUTE Industrial Arbitration Panel - Powers of - Extent of when making its award. TRADE DISPUTE Industrial relations - Matters of- Workers soliciting intervention of a State House Assembly in respect thereof- Propriety of. ISSUES: Whether there was a lock-out of the Respondent's workers on 15th April, 1981. Whether the Industrial Arbitration Panel exceeded its terms of reference by its finding on the root cause of the dispute. FACTS: There was a trade dispute between the parties, which was referred to the Industrial Arbitration Panel (IAP). In its Award, the IAP found that there was lock-out of workers by the First Party, but refused to order reinstatement of the workers. Rather it ordered payment of requisite benefits. Both the parties objected to the Award, hence the matter was referred to the National Industrial Court by the Minister of Labour. The first Party’s case was that the Industrial Arbitration Panel (IAP) was wrong in law by making award in favour of the Second Party, having found as a fact that the union had a fundamental breach of the provisions of the Trade Disputes Act 1976, (as - that it did not comply with the provision of section 3 of the Act concerning the declaration of trade dispute before embarking on an industrial action. The First Party also contended that the IAP's finding that "the root cause of the strained relationship was the j-'.:n of the union with the composition of the company's Joint Consultative Committee” vas not based on the union's claim. The IAP should not have given the award of redundancy benefit since it was the action of the workers in embarking on an illegal strike that led to their dismissal. The Second Party on its part stated that the main allegation was lock-out against the workers by the management of the First Party and that the IAP rightly found, based on the evidence before it, that there was a lock-out against the workers; and awarded them their benefits equal to what they would have been entitled to receive under their conditions of service, had they been laid off as being redundant on the 15th day of April, 1981. It was further contended that the court had powers to compel the management of the First Party to reinstate the laid off workers, since the IAP had found in favour of the workers that the management’s action amounted to a lock-out. It then urged the court to reinstate the HELD (Allowing the appeal of the First Party and dismissing that of the Second Party): 1. On When an industrial action will be illegal - Workers' failure to comply with the procedure of section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act, 1976 (No.7) concerning the declaration and notification of a Trade Dispute before embarking on an industrial action constitutes a breach of sections 3(1) and 13(l)(a) of the Trade Disputes Act, 1976 (as amended), and renders the industry action illegal. 2. On whether an employer can summarily dismiss its workers for failure resume normal work from an illegal industrial action despite repeated warnings- An employer can summarily dismiss its workers for their failure to resume norm work, despite repeated warnings issued by the employer of the consequences of' workers' illegal industrial action and such an action by the employer does not constitute a lock-out. 3. On Extent of the power of the Industrial Arbitration Panel in making its award- The Industrial Arbitration Panel (IAP) is empowered, in making its award, to b regard to the circumstances of the dispute and such other matters pertaining thereto or arising therefrom as it may deem necessary. In the instant case, the IAP did not exceed its terms of reference, as submitted by the first party, by its finding on the root cause of the dispute between the parties. 4. On Propriety of workers soliciting the intervention of a State House of Assembly in a matter of industrial relations - It is irregular and illegal for workers to resort to soliciting the intervention c: State House of Assembly in a straight-forward matter of industrial relations 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