Download PDF
NATIONAL UNION OF HOTELS AND PERSONAL SERVICE WORKERS (NUHPSW) AND ALIFUN - HOTEL AND CATERING LIMITED (NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT) HON. JUSTICE B.A.ADEJUMO - PRESIDENT PROF. B.B. KANYIP - MEMBER BARR. M.B. DADDA - MEMBER SUIT NO: - NIC/3/2002 DATE OF JUDGMENT - JANUARY9, 2004 LABOUR LAW Gratuity and redundancy schemes – Where agreed by parties to be mutually exclusive -Whether employee can benefit from both simultaneously - Applicable principles. LABOUR LAW National Industrial Court - Decision of -Whether and when it can depart from its previous decision - Rationale. NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT Decision of National Industrial Court -Whether and when it can depart from its previous decision - Rationale. ISSUE Whether in paying off redundancy staff, the Respondent kept faith with Exhibit “A”, the Conditions of Service between the Respondent and the staff. FACTS The Respondent is a limited liability company incorporated in Nigeria and engaged in hotel and catering services. The Applicant is a registered and recognized trade union in Nigeria with members in the Respondent company. Sometime in February 2000, a Collective Agreement (Exhibit “A”) was negotiated, agreed and given to the workers of the Respondent. On P September 2000, some of the workers were declared redundant and laid off. The Applicant union claimed that the laid off workers were paid off under a formula that was at variance with the redundancy formular in Exhibit “A”. They complained to the Respondent on the issue, and when the Respondent did not do anything they filed an application before the National Industrial Court for the interpretation of the said Collective Agreement. The Respondent did not appear to contest the Applicant’s claim. Held: (Dismissing the Appellant claim) 1. On Whether an employee can benefit from both gratuity and redundancy schemes where they are mutually exclusive - Where by the agreement of the parties, gratuity and redundancy schemes are mutually exclusive, no one employee can benefit from both simultaneously. An employee can only benefit from one of the schemes. However, justice demands that an employee should enjoy the higher benefit of the two schemes. Consequently, in the instant case, the Respondent did not err in paying the affected workers redundancy payment alone. 2. On Whether and when National Industrial Court will over-rule its earlier decision - It is the duty of a court of final arbiter to ensure that the position Of the law is dependable, reliable and certain. A situation whereby the National Industrial Court as a final court departs from its earlier decision without a cogent, reasonable or convincing point, which is inevitable for it to correct its mistake, or misrepresentation of facts by counsel, will spell doom for the industrial sector and employment matters. Thus, the National Industrial Court will not overrule itself or depart from its earlier decision except where there is a cogent reason for it to do so. 3. On Duty on counsel to bring all facts and existing decisions within his knowledge to the attention of the court - Every counsel owes a duty to the court as a minister in the temple ofjustice. It is therefore, his sacred duty to bring all facts and existing decisions within his knowledge to the attention of the court. This should be done even where such fact or decision may be adverse to his case.