Download PDF
NATIONAL UNION OFHOTELSAND PERSONAL SERVICES WORKER AND 1. NATIONAL UNION OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS WORKERS 2. SODEXHO NIGERIA LIMITED (NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT) HON. JUSTICE (CHIEF) P.A. ATILADE - PRESIDENT CHIEFM.A.BOR1SADE - MEMBER B.N. OBUA, ESQ. - MEMBER SUIT NO: NIC/1M/92 DATE OF RULING - 26TH JULY, 1995 LABOUR LAW - Collective agreement - Employer purporting to sign another collective agreement with another union - Whether thereby breached its obligations under an earlier collective agreement. LABOUR LAW - Collective agreement - Presumption of regularity of - Non-deposit of with Minister of Employment and Labour - Effect. LABOUR LAW - Trade union - Inter-union dispute – Exclusive jurisdiction of National Industrial Court to hear same. LABOUR LAW - Trade union - Recognition of – Employer according recognition to another union without first dispensing with the first one - Propriety of- Implication of. LABOUR LAW - Trade union - Unionization of employees - Company carrying on business of hotel, restaurant etc - Appropriate union to unionize employees of- Guide to determination of. TRADE UNION LAW - Inter-union dispute - Exclusive jurisdiction of National Industrial Court to hear same. TRADE UNION LAW - Trade union - Recognition of – Employer according recognition to another union without first dispensing with the first one - Propriety of Implication of. TRADE UNION LAW Unionization of employees - Company carrying on business of hotel, restaurant etc - Appropriate union to unionize employees of- Guide to determination of. ISSUES: 1. Whether the court can assume jurisdiction in the matter. 2. Which of the two unions - the National Union of Hotels and Personal Services Workers (Applicant) or the National Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (1St Respondent) - should have jurisdiction over the employees of SODEXHO Nigeria Limited (2nd Respondent)? FACTS: By an application dated 14th day of December, 1993 and supported by 32-paragraph affidavit, the Applicant sought interpretation by the National Industrial Court of a collective agreement between it and the 2nd Respondent, and for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd Respondent from recognizing the 1st Respondent as the representative of her workers. The Court heard arguments of counsel for the Applicant and the 1st Respondent on the application. The counsel for the 2nd Respondent said it would abide by the decision of the court. HELD (Granting the application): 1. On Exclusive jurisdiction of National Industrial Court to hear inter-union disputes- By virtue of section 21 A(1) and (2) of the Trade Disputes (Amendment) Decree No.47 of 1992, the National Industrial Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear a matter of inter-union dispute. 2. On Propriety of employer according recognition to another union without first dispensing with the first one - It does not show a good industrial relations practice on the part of employer for it to hook a new union, accord it recognition and start dealing with it, without first dispensing with the first union which exists in the company. By purporting to sign another collective agreement with the 1st Respondent, the 2nd Respondent has breached its obligations under the first collective agreement between it and the Applicant. 3. On Effects of non-deposit of collective agreement with the Minister of Employment and Labour - Non-deposit of a collective agreement with the Minister of Employment and Labour does not render the document invalid. When such non-deposit is proved, a fine could be imposed by the appropriate authority. 4. On Presumption of regularity of a collective agreement - There is a presumption of regularity in favour of a collective agreement between a union and a company. In this case, the presumption was not rebutted. 5. On Appropriate union to unionize employees of a company carrying on business of hotel, restaurant, etc - Where the memorandum of association of a company shows the objects for which the company is established as “to carry on the business of hotel, restaurant”, the objects fail within the jurisdictional scope of National Union of Hotels and Personal Service Workers, which is the appropriate union to unionize the employees of such a company. Thus, the fact that the company is engaged in the oil industry on contract basis does not mean that the workers must belong to NUPENG The Official Gazette Extraordinary of 8th February, 1978 defined the jurisdictional scope of the two unions in this case in paragraphs 33 and 45 thereof.