Download PDF
1. NIGERIAN UNION OF JOURNALISTS 2. OLUFEMIBABATUNDE JOHNSON 3. JOELOREDOLAALADESOHUN AND AFRICAN NEWSPAPERS OF NIGERIA LIMITED (NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT) HON. JUSTICE (CHIEF) P.A. ATILADE - PRESIDENT S.O. KOKU, ESQ. - MEMBER ALHAJI Z.M. BELLO - PRESIDENT SUIT NO: NIC/52/85 DATE OF RULING - TUESDAY, 3RD JUNE, 1986 LABOUR LAW - Trade dispute - Award - Damages and compensation - Award of in a trade dispute of court to make. LABOUR LAW - National Industrial Court - Interpret documents – Documents made in the coin settlement of a trade dispute - Power of to interpret. LABOUR LAW - Trade dispute - Award - Damages and compensation - Award of in a trade dispute-of court to make. LABOUR LAW - Trade dispute - Existence of - Whether employer from exercising disciplinary over employee. TRADE DISPUTE - Documents made in the course of settlement of a trade dispute - Power of National Industry interpret. TRADE DISPUTE - Existence of trade dispute - Whether employer from exercising disciplinary functions over employee. ISSUES: 1. Whether the National Industrial Court has jurisdiction to entertain the motion and to deal with questions regarding the interpretation of Exhibits JO/1 and JO/2. 2. Whether the National Industrial Court ought to restrain the Respondent from -Bilaterally breaching any term of the agreement dated 19th April, 1986 and from taking any further steps towards implementing the contents of the letters dated 10th May, 1986. 3. Whether the Respondents should be restrained from taking any steps to terminate the appointment of any employee of the Respondents pending the final determination of the dispute. FACTS The Applicants filed an originating summons (before the National Industrial Court) against the Respondent for the determination of certain questions and granting of the relief of injunction stated therein. Subsequently, the Applicants filed a motion for an order of interim injunction restraining the Respondents, its servants, agents or privies from unilaterally breaching any terms of agreement dated 19th April, 1986 reached by the parties and from taking any further steps towards implementing the contents of the letters dated 10th May, 1986 or taking any steps to terminate the appointment of any employee of the Respondent pending the final determination of the dispute between the parties. The motion was supported by a 15-paragraph affidavit. The Respondent also filed a 15-paragraph counter-affidavit in opposition to the motion. The court heard arguments from counsel to both parties for and against the motion. HELD: (Dismissing the Applicants’ application): 1. On Exclusive jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court to settle trade disputes: By section 15(1) of the Trade Disputes Act, 1976 the National Industrial Court shall to the exclusion of any fusion of any other court have jurisdiction to make awards for the purpose of settling trade disputes. 2. On Power of National Industrial Court to interpret documents made in the course of the settlement of a trade dispute - As the National Industrial Court has the power to make awards for the settlement of trade disputes, the court must have the power to make awards concerning documents made in the course and in pursuance of the settlement of a trade dispute. Proceedings, steps and measures, which led to the settlement of a trade dispute, must necessarily come under the jurisdiction of the court. The court's jurisdiction covers the construction and interpretation of documents entered into in the course - pursuant to and aimed at the settlement of a trade dispute. In the instant case, Exhibits JO/1 and JO/2 were entered into in the course and in pursuance of mediation aimed at the settlement of a trade dispute. Therefore, the court has jurisdiction to deal with questions regarding their interpretation. 3. On Relevant consideration for National Industrial Court on whether to grant injunction against employer - In an industrial dispute, there is ample power for the National Industrial Court to grant adequate damages and financial compensation to parties if they succeed in the trial. In the instant case, the Applicant's application for injunction was refused and dismissed because the court considered that r| power to grant adequate damages and financial compensation to the Applicant if they should succeed in the trial, and that the Respondent should be expected: such damages or financial compensation. The Applicants would, if they s succeeded in the trial, suffer no great inconvenience if an interim injunction was not granted in their favour. 4. On whether a trade dispute prevents an employer from exercising its disciplinary functions - The fact that there is a trade dispute will not prevent an employer from exercising normal management disciplinary functions. It is not to be envisaged employer would be unable to discipline any employee even for acts unconnected with the trade dispute until the dispute is finally determined. H ON. JUSTICE (CHIEF) P.A. ATILADE PRESIDENT, S.O. KOKU,ESQ. MEMBER, ALHAJI Z.M. BELLO MEMBER