Download PDF
ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR STAFF OF BANKS, INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS (ASSBIFI) 2. NATIONAL UNION OF BANKS, INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS EMPLOYEES (NUBIFIE) AND AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY 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/1/85 DATE OF JUDGMENT - FRIDAY, 25TH JULY, 1986 LABOUR LAW - Employee benefits - Generalized opinions of Government officials thereon - How treated by court. LABOUR LAW - Trade union - Management staff- Decision as to which senior staff to be designated as projection of management - Prerogative of employer in respect thereof - Whether a matter for legislative action or judicial determination -Attitude of court thereto. LABOUR LAW - Trade union - Membership of -Categorization of staff for purpose of -Prerogative of employers in respect thereof-Section 3(3), Trade Unions Act, 1973 (as amended by Decree No.86 of 1979) - Purpose of. TRADE UNION LAW - Trade union - Management staff- Decision as to which senior staff to be designated as projection of management - Prerogative of employer in respect thereof - Whether a matter for legislative action or judicial determination - Attitude of court thereto. TRADE UNION LAW - Trade union - Membership of - Categorization Of staff for purpose of - Prerogative of employer in respect thereof Section 3(3), Trade Unions Act, 1973 (as amended by Decree No.86 of 1979) - Purpose of. ISSUE: Whether the security allowance provided for a category of staff designated as “senior management staff" by the Board of Directors of the Respondent should be extended other two bodies of employees, the Appellants herein. FACTS: The Respondent awarded a security allowance to its staff designated as "senior staff management". The Appellants believed the security allowance should be extended: members that are all staff of the Respondent. They therefore declared a dispute, which referred to the Industrial Arbitration Panel (IAP). The IAP, in its decision, declined to make any award in favour of the Appellants in of payment of security allowance to their members. The 1st Appellant was dissatisfied the no award of the IAP and lodged an objection against same. The Minister of Employment, Labour and Productivity therefore referred the between the parties to the National Industrial Court for final settlement. HELD: (Dismissing the appeal): 1. On Prerogative of Employer to classify and grade employees - The provisions of subsection 3 of section 3 of the Trade Unions Act, 1973(as amended by Decree No.86 of 1979) does not have the effect of ousting or extinguishing the inherent prerogative of employers to classify and grade their employees as best suited to the efficient management of their businesses. 2. On Purpose of section 3 (3) of the Trade Unions Act, 1973 (as amended by Decree No.86 of l979)- The essential purpose of that statutory provision is to eliminate conflicts of interests and disorder in the formation and operation of trade unions within establishment in both the public and private sectors of the economy by laying down broad categories of employees who are eligible to be members of trade unions within the organization concerned. 3. On Prerogative of employer to designate senior staff as projection of management and attitude of court thereto - The decision as to which of senior staff within the management structure should be designated or recognized as projection of management must, of necessity and logically, be a matter of management decision and not of legislative action or judicial determination. Thus, it is not part of the court's statutory responsibility to interfere with the exercise of administrative or managerial responsibilities of employers of labour, be it in the private or public sector, by seeking to determine which members of their staff should be designated as projection of management, living regard to their conditions of service. 4. On How generalized opinions by government officials on employees' benefits abated by court - The generalized opinion expressed by officials of the Federal Ministry of Employment, Labour and Productivity in respect of the application of some fringe benefits to certain employees are not sufficient evidence upon which the court can justify the extension of the award of benefits to a category of employees of a company. H ON. JUSTICE (CHIEF) P.A. ATILADE PRESIDENT, S.O. KOKU,ESQ. MEMBER, ALHAJI Z.M. BELLO MEMBER