Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction & Claims The Claimant approached the Court on 15/4/14 for the following reliefs against the Defendant - 1. The sum of =N=5,500,000.00 only being the amount due and payable to the Claimant by the Defendant as arrears of salaries, leave allowances, balances due on half salaries paid and other entitlements due to the Claimant based on his employment with the Defendant. 2. Interest on the said =N=5,500,000.00 at the rate of 21% per annum from 1st February, 2013 till Judgment and 21% on the Judgment debt till total liquidation. 3. Cost. The Claimant's General Form of Complaint was accompanied with statement of claim(?), witness statement on oath, Verifying Affidavit as well as List and copies of Documents to be relied on at trial. On 13/6/14, the Defendant entered an appearance and filed its statement of defence with all the requisite frontloaded processes. 2. Case of the Claimant The hearing of this case commenced on 19/11/14 when the Claimant testified as CW1, adopted his written witness deposition dated 15/4/14 as his evidence in chief. Witness also adopted his further statement on oath dated 10/7/14 as his further evidence in chief 8 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted and marked as Exh. C1-Exh. C8. The case of the Claimant, in brief, is that he was employed by the Defendant as its Commercial Manager by an employment contract dated 24/6/10; that his monthly salary was =N=1,000,000.00; that by a letter dated 17/5/11, the Defendant admitted that he was its confirmed staff; that the Defendant reviewed his salary and those of other staff downward sometimes in 2011 due to its financial situation with a promise to pay back the balance when same improved; that he resigned his appointment by giving 3 months' notice as stipulated under his contract with the Defendant; that the Defendant opted to waive the 3 months notice given; that at the time of his resignation he was owed annual leave arrears and that efforts to receive same from the Defendant proved abortive. Under cross examination. CW1 testified that his relationship with the Defendant is controlled by the contract he signed with the Defendant; that while working with PZ Plc he gained some experience in working with staff; that he worked there for about 3 years and that his employment was confirmed with PZ in writing. Witness stated that he read the employment contract he signed with Defendant; that he requested a letter of confirmation for a transaction and was given; that the Defendant does not have a policy of writing letters of confirmation for staff; that he gave the Defendant 3 months' notice as required but that the Defendant did not allow him to work for the 3 months as it directed him to leave; that he is entitled to salaries for the 3 months of notice; that he gave proper notice to prepare for his exit; that he was called as Head of Team by the Defendant and asked to make a call on behalf of those under him - Mr. Shuaibu Gbadamosi, National sales Manager and Mr. Kola Oyabiyi, Regional sales Manager, Lagos West who also left the Defendant. Witness added that he is aware of the letter dated 29/1/12 though he contested it when it was shown to him in July; that half salary was paid to his account in July and August; that he resigned on 15/8/12; that he is not aware if any of his other 2 staff returned to ask for their half salary; that approval for leave is usually verbal and that he did not write any letter as it was not the practice to do so. 3. Case of the Defendant The Defendant opened its defence on 11/4/16. It called one Mrs. Njideka Unokesan as its DW1. DW1 adopted her written statement on oath dated 8/4/16 as her evidence in chief and tendered 1 document for admission as exhibit. The document was admitted without objection as exhibit and marked as Exh. D1. The case of the Defendant is that though the Claimant was its employee, the Claimant's employment was not confirmed; that Claimant failed to meet target set for him and his remuneration was reviewed downward with his consent; that Claimant suspecting that his poor performance would lead to the termination of his appointment tendered his letter of resignation giving 3 months notice; that the Defendant waived the 3 months notice, accepted the resignation effective from 31/8/12 and that the Claimant is not entitled to receive salary during the 3 months he did not work for, not being a confirmed staff he is not entitled to any accrued six weeks leave or allowances for the period 2011 and 2012 or any sum of money from the Defendant. DW1 testified under cross examination that she worked with Kimberly Ryan between July 2007 and November 2008; that thereafter she worked with Earcholeum Networks Limited from August 2011 to 2012; that she joined Defendant on 12/2/14; that she did not meet the Claimant in the Defendant Company; that she is aware of the fact that the Claimant gave the Defendant 3 months notice of resignation; that the original of the letter of resignation is with the Defendant; that it is the duty of the Defendant to confirm after probationary period or give reason for not doing so; that Claimant's employment was not confirmed; that Exh. C8 was issued by the Defendant; that Claimant did not take his annual leave for the 2 years he worked with the Defendant though entitled to it; that Claimant is entitled to be paid for the period of notice he gave the Defendant; that there is no clause in the contract of employment that if the Claimant did not perform there would be a cut in his salary; that anything done contrary to the contract of employment will be invalid; that there is no sales target for the Claimant in his letter of employment and that no Query was issued to the Claimant throughout his employment. 4. Submissions on Behalf of the Claimant At the close of trial, the Court directed learned Counsel on either side to file their final written address in accordance with the Rules of Court. Learned Counsel to the Defendant ought to file his final written address first but did not. The final written address of the Claimant was dated and filed 14/9/16. In it, learned Counsel canvassed the following issues for the just determination of this case - 1. Whether the Claimant was a confirmed employee of the Defendant. 2. Whether the Claimant was entitled to leave and to be paid leave allowance by the Defendant for his period of employment. 3. Whether the Defendant had the right to cut the Claimant's salary and pay him half salary without his consent. 4. Whether the Defendant could waive the 3 months' notice of resignation given by the Defendant and what is the effect of such a waiver on the entitlements due to the Claimant. On issue 1, learned Counsel referred to Clauses 3, 4 & 8 of Exh. C1 stating that the employment of the Claimant commenced on 1/9/10 and shall, subject to satisfactory performance, be confirmed on the completion of 6 months of probation. Counsel submitted that the word used in Clause 8 of Exh. C1 is shall which is mandatory citing Onochie v. Odogwu (2006)2 S.C (Pt. 11) 166.Learned Counsel submitted further that indeed by Exh. C2 the Defendant had admitted and confirmed that the Claimant was a confirmed and a dependable person to relate with and that a claim that the Claimant was not a confirmed staff goes to no issue, citing Maridex Trust Limited v. NIMB Limited (2001)4 SC (Pt. 1) 25. Counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue in favor of the Claimant. Respecting issue 2, learned Counsel submitted that the defendant's lone witness confirmed under cross examination that the Claimant was entitled to 8 weeks leave; that anything done contrary to Exh. C1 was invalid. Counsel further submitted that the Claimant only took 2 weeks out of his 2011 annual leave in July as evidenced by Exh. C8; that he would not have given annual leave if he was not a confirmed staff as argued; that Claimant did not take annual leave in 2012 and that his accrued leave of 6 weeks and the leave allowance in the sum of =N=1,500,000.00 is what he urges the Court to direct the Defendant to pay to him. Counsel urged the Court to so hold. On issue 3, learned Counsel submitted that the Defendant has no right to reduce the salary of the Claimant as it did; that the alleged poor performance and persistent low level of sales on the part of the Claimant was not proved in any way; that a unilateral cut in employee's salary without his consent is not permissible under Section 5(2), Labour Act, Cap. 198, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. Counsel further cited Chemical & Non-Metallic Products SSA v. Benue Cement Co. Plc (2005)2 NLLR (Pt. 6) 456. Learned Counsel prayed the Court to so hold. Finally on issue 4, learned Counsel submitted that the Claimant gave a letter of resignation dated 15/8/12 with 3 months notice; that resignation takes effect from the date of receipt of same citing Adefemi v. Abegunde (2004)14 NWLR (Pt. 895) 1; that the Claimant intended to work and be paid for the 3 months of notice of resignation and that the Defendant's waiver of the 3 months given by the Claimant did not and cannot amount to waiver of the Claimant's salary for the period of notice and that parties in this case are bound by the contract voluntarily entered into by them. Learned Counsel urged the Court to so hold. 5. Decision I have read with understanding all the processes filed by Counsel on either side. I read the final written address of the Claimant as filed and understand same. I note as earlier indicated that the learned Counsel to the Defendant did not file any final written address in this case. I listened to the testimonies of the witnesses called at trial, watched their demeanor and evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted. Having done all this, I set a lone issue as follows down for determination - Whether the Claimant has proved his case to be entitled to all or any of the reliefs sought. The Claimant sought reliefs under 3 major heads of claim. The first is the sum of =N=5,500,000.00 only being the amount due and payable to the Claimant by the Defendant as arrears of salaries, leave allowances, balances due on half salaries paid and other entitlements due to the Claimant based on his employment with the Defendant. This is made up of 3 months arrears of salaries, leave allowances and balances due on half salaries paid to the Claimant. By his contract of employment (Exh. C1), with the Defendant, Claimant's employment was subject to a 6-month period of probation after which he would be confirmed. I find that appointment to be effective from 1/9/10. I also find that by Exh. C8, a voluntary representation was made by the Defendant to a 3rd party that the Claimant ''is a confirmed staff of Smart Mark Limited'' and ''we found him to be a dependable person to relate with''. The law remains trite that parties are bound by the terms of contract they voluntarily entered into and must ensure compliance with same. See Wema Bank Plc & Anor. v. Alaran Frozen Foods Agency Nigeria Limited & Anor. (2015) LPELR-25980 (CA).Under the existing contract between the parties, the Claimant is under an obligation to give 3 months notice should he desire to resign from the employment of the Defendant. There is no controversies that the Claimant gave the requisite notice. The argument of the Defendant is that it waived the need for the notice and accepted the resignation to take effect from 31/8/12. Under cross examination, the DW1 confirmed the fact that the Claimant is entitled to be paid for the period of notice he gave the Defendant. The right of the Claimant is a contractual one which the Defendant may only waive at its own peril. In other words the exercise of power to waive the notice of resignation given by the Claimant must be followed with the payment to the Claimant of his salaries and allowance due to and accruable to him during the period of notice. The rationale behind this is simply that the Claimant by giving the notice intended to work and be paid salaries and allowances ordinarily due to him during the period. Thus, should the Defendant be desirous of dispensing with the notice, the only option available to it is to pay the Claimant the salaries and allowances due for the period. It needs be stated that for an employer to waive a notice resignation given by an employee amounts to the employer terminating the employment of the employee without notice and for which the employer must make requisite payment in lieu. The Defendant is here directed and ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=3,000,000.00 being the 3 months salaries of the Claimant receivable by him during the period of notice he gave for the resignation of his appointment. The second head of claim is leave allowances in the sum of =N=1,500,000.00. Both parties agreed that the Claimant did not fully take his annual leave. Indeed under cross examination, DW1 in answer to a question testified that the Claimant did not take his annual leave for the 2 years he worked with the Defendant though entitled to it. Now the Claimant has claimed the sum of =N=1,500,000.00 as his leave allowances for the period. The Claimant has provided no basis for the sum claimed. I examined the contract of service between the parties - Exh. C1, I find no clause there respecting how much the Claimant is to be paid as annual leave allowance. Indeed Clause 9 of Exh. C1 simply provides that ''Employee is entitled to 4 weeks leave per annum'' with no provision on leave allowance or what a staff would be entitled to in event of not taking annual leave. There is no proof of this claim. A party will only be entitled a relief properly proved with cogent evidence. See Joseph v. Fajemilehin O.O & Anor, (2012) LPELR-9849 (CA). Not having been proved therefore the claim for =N=1,500,000.00 as leave allowance for the period of 2011 and 2012 is refused and dismissed. The Claimant also claimed balances due on half salaries paid and other entitlements due to the Claimant based on his employment with the Defendant. The Claimant averred that he was paid half salary in the months of July and August 2012 by the Defendant with an understanding that the balance would be paid when the finances of the Defendant improved. However by Exh. D1 that action was a unilateral one by the Defendant alleging a persistent low level of sales by the Claimant's team and the effects of same on its finances. I have evidence of the DW1 on oath to the effect that that there is no clause in the Claimant's contract of employment that if the Claimant did not perform there would be a cut in his salary; that anything done contrary to the contract of employment will be invalid and that there is no sales target for the Claimant in his letter of employment and that no Query was issued to the Claimant throughout his employment. Salaries of employees are central to their lives. Most employment offers are accepted usually on the basis of salaries and allowances attached. Thus, employees arrange their lives and those of their dependants on the basis of their expected income. Therefore it is unconscionable for an employer to unilaterally order and direct a downward review of salaries and allowances of its employees and the law also frowns at such action. I have said it before in Adebusola Adedayo Omole v. Mainstreet Bank Microfinance Bank Limited Suit No: NICN/LA/341/2012 delivered on 3/4/14 and l am constrained to restate same here that at the global level a unilateral reduction in the wages and salaries of workers is not acceptable. We must bear in mind that no nation can be an island to herself and any nation that seeks to do so will be doing so at its own peril. The need to ensure that the Nigerian labour jurisprudence is in tandem with what is obtainable at the international scene found reflection in the National Industrial Court Act, 2006. Thus the Act in section 7(6) provides as follows: 'The Court (that is National Industrial Court of Nigeria) shall, exercising its jurisdiction or any of the powers conferred upon it by this Act or any other law, have due regard to good or international best practice in labour or industrial relations and what amounts to good or international best practice in labour or industrial relations shall be a question of fact'. More importantly, by section 254C1(h) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Third Alteration) Act 2010 the court is endowed with power to have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters 'relating to or connected with or pertaining to the application or interpretation of international labour standards'. One method of gauging or determining international labour standards is an examination of Conventions of the International Labour Organisation. Indeed the International Labour Organisation has for a long time frown at any act of unilateral deduction of workers' wages. Thus, the Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 No. 95 specifically provides in Article 8 that - 'Deduction from wages shall be permitted only under conditions and to the extent prescribed by national laws or regulations or fixed by collective agreement or arbitration award. Workers shall be informed, in the manner deemed most appropriate by the competent authority, of the conditions under which and the extent to which such deductions may be made'. The above Article of the Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 (No. 95) has since been incorporated into domestic legislation. Thus Section 5(1), Labour Act Cap. L1, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 unequivocally provides that: 'Except where it is expressly permitted by this Act or any other law, no employer shall make any deduction or make any agreement or contract with a worker for any deduction from the wages to be paid by the employer to the worker, or to any payment to the employer by the worker, for or in respect of any fines: Provided that, with the prior consent in writing of an authorised labour officer, a reasonable deduction may be made in respect of injury or loss caused to the employer by the willful misconduct or neglect of the worker' The word used by both the Labour Act and the Protection of Wages Convention (No. 95) is 'Deduction' and not 'Reduction'. However, The New International WEDSTER'S COMPREHENSIVE DICTIONARY of the English Language, Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition, 2000 Edition page 334, defined the word 'Deduct' as 'To subtract', 'take away' while the word 'deduction' was explained as 'subtraction'. The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary International Student's Edition on the other hand defined the word 'Deduct' on page 381 to mean 'to take away money, etc from a total amount'. The same Dictionary explained the word 'Deduction' to mean 'the process of taking an amount of, especially money away from a total'. Within the context of the ILO Convention No. 95 and the necessary intendment of the Legislature in enacting the Labour Act in general and the provisions of section 5(1) thereof, it is doubtful if it can be reasonably contended that the word 'Deduction' used therein convey a meaning different from the word 'Reduce'. I find and hold that the reduction of the Claimant's salary is unjustifiable and is contrary to the contract of employment entered into between the Claimant and the Defendant. I therefore direct and order the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=1,000,000.00 being the balance of half salary outstanding for the months of July and August 2012. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment, 1. The Defendant is here directed and ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=3,000,000.00 being the 3 months salaries of the Claimant receivable by him during the period of notice he gave for the resignation of his appointment. 2. Not having been proved therefore the claim for =N=1,500,000.00 as leave allowance for the period of 2011 and 2012 is refused and dismissed. 3. I therefore direct and order the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=1,000,000.00 being the balance of half salary outstanding for the months of July and August 2012. 4. All the sums due under and by virtue of this Judgment shall be paid with interest at the rate of 15% per annum form 1st February, 2013 till total liquidation of the entire Judgment debt. 5. The Defendant is to pay cost of this action accessed at =N100,000.00. All the terms of this Judgment are to be complied with within 30 days from today. Judgment is entered accordingly ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge