Download PDF
SPECOMILLS TEXTILES LIMITED, IKEJA AND NATIONAL UNION OF TEXTILES, GARMENT AND TAILORING WORKERS OF NIGERIA (NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT) H ON. JUSTICE (CHIEF) P.A. ATILADE PRESIDENT M.A. BORISADE, ESQ. MEMBER B. N. OBUA, ESQ. MEMBER SUIT NO: NIC/1/91 DATE OF JUDGMENT 7TH MAY, 1992 LABOUR LAW Dismissal - Employer serving dismissal notices on workers and requiring them to get police clearance before they can resume duty - Whether proper. LABOUR LAW Trade Dispute -Lock-out of workers -Action of employer requiring workers to get police clearance on a matter before they can resume duty - When will Not constitute lock-out of workers. TRADE DISPUTE: Trade dispute - Lock-out of workers - Action of employer requiring workers to get police clearance on a matter before they can resume duty - When will not constitute lock-out of workers. ISSUES: 1. Whether the action of the management on 7th and 8th September, 1989, amounts to a lock-out under section 37 of the Trade Disputes Act, 1976. 2 Whether the dismissal of the nine union leaders was justified. FACTS: The trade dispute between the parties came about immediately after the election of the branch executive members of the Respondent. On the 3rd of May, 1989, the Respondent’s executive called out the Appellant’s workers without the Appellant’s permission On the 7’ of September, 1989 both parties met, but could not reach any agreement on the issues m dispute Again the union leaders addressed the workers without permission The Appellant’s security man was beaten up and hospitalized. On the 8th of September, the union officials returned again to address the workers. They were invited to the police station following the report made by the management about the security man who was assaulted, but they refused until after they had addressed the workers. The Appellant requested the union leaders to get police clearance on the matter before they could resume duty. When the union leaders failed to get the police clearance and resume duty, the Appellant dismissed them. The matter was referred to the Industrial Arbitration Panel, which in its award held that the action of the management amounted to a lock-out of the nine union officials and cancelled the dismissal letters served on them. The Appellant was dissatisfied with the Panel’s award and appealed to the National Industrial Court. HELD: (Allowing the appeal on reinstatement but awarding severance pay): 1. On whether proper for management to dismiss workers in their process of getting police clearance to resume work as required of them by management- Management’s action of serving its workers dismissal notices when they are reporting at the police station for clearance as required of them, is unfair and therefore such dismissal is not justified. 2. On whether action of employer to maintain law and order constitute lock-out of workers - The action of management in requiring union officials to get police clearance on a matter before they can resume duty is merely pre-emptive and for the preservation of law and order. Such an action does not amount to a lock-out. In the instant case, the nine union leaders called out workers to address them on 7th September, 1989 during working hours without the permission of the management, and by so doing caused disruption of production. The company security man was also beaten up during some confusion, which occurred under the leadership of the nine leader The matter of the security man was reported to the police and the nine union leaders were required to get police clearance on the matter before they could resume duty In the circumstances, the action of the management was clearly pre-emptive and the, court rejected the claim of the union that the nine union leaders were locked-out.