Download PDF
NATIONAL UNION OF HOTELS AND PERSONAL SERVICE WORKERS (NUHPSW) AND WHASSAN EUREST (NIGERIA) LIMITED (NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT) HON. JUSTICE B.A. ADEJUMO PRESIDENT PROF. B.B. KANYIP MEMBER BAR. M.B. DADDA MEMBER SUIT NO: NIC/14/2001 DATE OF RULING JANUARY 9, 2004 LABOUR LAW Collective agreement - Jurisdiction of National Industrial Court to interpret - Who can activate same - Need to show sufficient nexus with the collective agreement - Whether collective agreement can be executed against non-party thereto. NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT Collective agreement - Jurisdiction of National Industrial Court to interpret - Who can activate same - Need to show sufficient nexus with the Collective agreement - Whether collective agreement can be executed against non-Party thereto. ISSUE: Whether there has been disclosed a cause of action sufficient enough to activate the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court to interpret collective agreement under sections 15 and 20 of the Trade Disputes Act. FACTS The Applicant, by an originating motion on notice, prayed the National Industrial Court for an interpretation as to which of two collective agreements, one dated 1 5t! October 1998, and another dated 25th March 1999, the Respondent should use in paying off laid off workers, and other reliefs. The collective agreement of 15th October, 1998 is between the association of Hotels and Personal Services Employers and the Applicant union. The collective agreement of 25th May, 1999 is between Whassan Hotels and Catering Services Limited and the Applicant union. The respondent was not a signatory to either of the collective agreements. On its part, the Respondent raised a preliminary objection to the Applicant’s motion, or the ground, inter alia, that the Applicant could not enforce the collective agreements against the Respondent. Held: (Striking out the suit): On who can activate the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court to interpret collective agreements - By the provisions of sections 15(1) and 20(1) of the Trade Disputes Act 1990, particularly section 15(1), it is the Minister or any party to a collective agreement that can apply to the National Industrial Court and activate the jurisdiction of the court to interpret collective agreements. Except for the Minister, any party seeking the interpretation by the court of any collective agreement must show sufficient nexus between the party and the collective agreement. But in view of the fact that the collective agreement cannot be interpreted in vain, the party against whom the interpretation is sought must be shown to be bound by the collective agreement, as by being a party to it. This is because, the principle of extension of collective agreements to non-signatories to it is not yet part of the labour law of Nigeria. In this case, nowhere was it shown that the Respondent is a signatory to any or both of the collective agreement in issue, as to determine against whom the court’s jurisdiction will apply.   183. CORPORATE AFFAIRS COMMISSION AND AMALGAMATED UNION OF PUBLIC CORPORATIONS, CIVIL SERVICE TECHNICAL AND RECREATIONAL SERVICE EMPLOYEES (NATIONAL INDUSTRL4L COURT) HON. JUSTICE B.A. ADEJUMO - PRESIDENT PROF. B.B. KANYIP - MEMBER MRS. V.N. OKOBI - MEMI3ER SUIT NO: NLC/1/2003 DATE OFJUDGMENT - 28TH JANUARY, 2004. LABOUR LAW “Trade dispute”- Meaning of Ingredients of -Whether all must be present. LABOUR LAW National Industrial Court - Jurisdiction of in appeals against awards by Industrial Arbitration Panel – How activated. LABOUR LAW National Industrial Court - Power of to take oral hearings and fresh evidence when entertaining a matter. LABOUR LAW National Industrial Court - Procedure and proceedings thereof - Power of to regulate – Whether bound by formal requirements prevalent in regular courts - Section 3 6(3), Trade Disputes Act. LABOUR LAW Trade dispute - “To declare a trade dispute” – Meaning of- Declaration of trade dispute - What it entails. LABOUR LAW Trade dispute -Apprehension of - Power of the Minister to apprehend a trade dispute - Scope of under section 4 of the Trade Disputes Act LABOUR LAW Trade dispute - Apprehension of a trade dispute - Meaning of. LABOUR LAW Trade dispute - Award of Industrial Arbitration Panel -Objection thereto - Persons who can make – Section 12(2) (b), Trade Disputes Act. LABOUR LAW Trade dispute - Award of Industrial Arbitration Panel - Notice of objection thereto - Irregularity therein -Where not raised by adverse party - How treated by National Industrial Court. LABOUR LAW Trade dispute - Declaration of trade dispute – Persons who can declare a trade dispute. LABOUR LAW Trade dispute - Notice of objection - Where not made by appropriate person - Referral of a matter by Minister to National Industrial Court based thereon -Whether affects jurisdiction thereof. LABOUR LAW Trade dispute - Procedure for settling same – Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13(2), 16 and 20(3) of the Trade Disputes Act. LABOUR LAW Trade dispute - What constitutes check-off dues -Complaint of refusal of employer to deduct – Whether does not constitute a trade dispute. LABOUR LAW Trade dispute - Recognition of a trade union and deductions of check-off dues - Question of -Appropriate court to entertain - National Industrial Court - Jurisdiction of therein. LABOUR LAW Trade union - “Corporation” in the Trade Unions Act - Meaning of - Corporate Affairs Commission - Whether a corporation in the context of section 10 of Decree l of 1999. LABOUR LAW Trade union - Check-off dues -Duty of employer to deduct and pay to union - Mandatory nature of. LABOUR LAW Trade union - Formation of - Whether the Companies and Allied Matters Act applies thereto -Sections 1 (3) (a), 2 (1) & (3), and 44, Trade Unions Act. LABOUR LAW Trade union - Meaning and purposes of. LABOUR LAW Trade union - Recognition of - Compulsory deduction of check-off dues in favour of -Constitutionality of.   LABOUR LAW Trade union - Recognition of- Refusal to accord to a trade union - Criminality of - Section 24(2), Trade Unions Act. LABOUR LAW Trade union - Recognition of by employer - Whether compulsory and automatic. LABOURLAW LABOUR LAW Trade union - Registration and recognition of - Automatic and compulsory nature of- Basis of. LABOURLAW Trade union - Restrictive trade union regime in Nigeria - Constitutionality of. LABOURLAW Trade union - Restructuring of – Amalgamated Union of Public Corporations, Civil Service Technical and Recreational Service Employees -Jurisdictional scope of. NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT Worker - Who is for purposes of section 47 of the Trade Disputes Act - Whether trade union qualifies as a worker. NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT Jurisdiction of National Industrial Court -Jurisdiction of in appeals against awards by Industrial Arbitration Panel - How activated. NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT Power of National Industrial Court - Power of to take oral hearings and fresh evidence when entertaining a matter. NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT Procedure and proceedings of National Industrial Court - Power of to regulate - Whether bound by formal requirements prevalent in regular courts - Section 3 6(3), Trade Disputes Act. TRADE DISPUTE “To declare a trade dispute” -Meaning of - Declaration of trade dispute - What it entails. TRADE DISPUTE Apprehension of a trade dispute - Meaning of. TRADE DISPUTE Award of Industrial Arbitration Panel - Objection thereto - Who can make - Section 12(2) (b), Trade Disputes Act. TRADE DISPUTE Award of Industrial Arbitration Panel -Objection thereto - Notice of Irregularity therein - Where not raised by adverse party – How treated by National Industrial Court. TRADE DISPUTE Declaration of trade dispute - Persons who can declare a trade dispute. TRADE DISPUTE Meaning of “trade dispute” - Ingredients of -Whether all must be present. TRADE DISPUTE Recognition of a trade Union and deduction of check-off dues - Question of- Appropriate court - to entertain - National Industrial Court -Jurisdiction of therein. TRADE DISPUTE Trade dispute - Procedure for settling same -Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13(2), 16 and 20(3) of the Trade Disputes Act. TRADE UNION LAW Check-off dues - Duty of employer to deduct and pay to union - Mandatory nature of. TRADE UNION LAW Notice of objection - Where not Made by appropriate person - Referral of a matter by Minister to National Industrial Court based thereon - Whether affects jurisdiction thereof. TRADE UNION LAW Trade union - “Corporation” in the Trade Unions Act - Meaning of - Corporate Affairs Commission - Whether a corporation in the context of section 10 of Decree 1 of 1999. TRADE UNION LAW Trade union - Formation of -Whether the Companies and Allied Matters Act applies thereto - Sections 1(3) (a), 2 (1) & (3), and 44 of Trade Unions Act. TRADE UNION LAW Trade union - Recognition of - Compulsory deduction of check-off dues in favour of - Constitutionality of   TRADE UNION LAW Trade union - Recognition of trade union -Whether compulsory and automatic. TRADE UNION LAW Trade union - Registration and recognition of -Automatic and compulsory nature of- Basis of. TRADE UNION LAW Trade union - Restrictive trade union regime in Nigeria - Constitutionality of. TRADE UNION LAW Trade union - Whether a worker for purpose of section 47 of the Trade Disputes Act. TRADE UNION LAW Trade unions - Restructuring of – Amalgamated Union of Public Corporations, Civil Service Technical and Recreational Service Employees -Jurisdictional scope of. TRADE UNION LAW Trade union - Recognition of - Refusal to accord recognition to a trade union - Criminality of -Section 24(2), Trade Unions Act. WORDS AND PHRASES “Trade dispute” - Meaning of - Ingredients of -Whether all must be present. ISSUES 1. Whether the questions as to the refusal of the Appellant to recognize the Respondent union and to deduct check-off dues in favour of the Respondent union qualify as a trade dispute for purposes of the Trade Disputes Act. 2. Whether a union, or workers, or employer(s) cannot declare a trade dispute under the Trade Disputes Act. 3. Whether in law the Appellant refused to recognize the Respondent union, and secondly, whether there was a refusal to deduct check-off dues on the apart of the Appellant in favour of the Respondent union. FACTS The Appellant is a Commission set up by the Federal Government, while the Respondent is one of the trade unions registered and recognized by law. The Respondent applied to the Appellant to enable it unionize the employees of the later, who were eligible to be its members and to deduct check-off dues from the employees’ salaries.   The Appellant declined the Respondent’s request, the latter then declared a trade dispute against the Appellant. The matter was referred to the Industrial Arbitration Panel for adjudication. The Panel, after its deliberation, made its award substantially in favour of the Respondent. The Appellant was not satisfied with the Panel’s award and appealed to the National Industrial Court. Held: (Dismissing the appeal): 1. On Persons who can object to an award of the Industrial Arbitration Panel - The power to object to an award of the Industrial Arbitration Panel is as provided by section 12(2) (b) of the Trade Disputes Act, which allows for notice of objection to be given by or on behalf of either party to the dispute. To act for or on behalf of a party presupposes a valid authorization, the type ordinarily permitting, say, a counsel to act for or on behalf of a client. In the instant case, the Joint Consultative Council, not being the Corporate Affairs Commission or the union, the parties in the dispute, had no business objecting to the award and the Honourable Minister of Labour and Productivity should not have acted on the Notice of Objection, this coming from the wrong party. Alternatively, the Honourable Minister should have acted only upon satisfying himself of the specific authorization of the JCC by the CAC for the former to act on its behalf. 2. On How jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court can be activated in matters of appeals against awards by the Industrial Arbitration Panel - The jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court in matters of appeals against awards by Industrial Arbitration Panel is only activated upon a referral from the Minister of Labour and Productivity. However, where a party does not make an issue out of an irregularity of a notice of objection, the court will be constrained to treat the matter on its merit, its jurisdiction on it having been activated by the ministerial referral. 3. On Jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court to entertain question of recognition of a trade union and deduction of check-off dues - The questions of recognition of a trade union and deductions of check-off dues by employers are matters provided for in the Trade Unions Act (as amended) by Decree 4 of 1996 and Decree 1 of 1999. By section 50A of the Trade Unions Act (as amended) by section 7 of Decree 1 of 1999, no question as to the validity of any action taken by any person or authority in pursuance of the Act shall be entertained by any court other than the appropriate court having the jurisdiction to entertain Such Matters. And section 52 of the Trade Unions Act (as amended) by section 8 of Decree 1 of 1999 defines “appropriate court” to mean “the Industrial Arbitration Panel and the National Industrial Court as the case may be”. In the instant case, therefore, the question whether the Appellant should recognize the Respondent union and then deduct check-off dues in respect of its staff who are eligible to be members of the Respondent union was a question properly before the National Industrial Court. 4. On Meaning of “trade dispute” - The term “trade dispute” is a term in labour/industrial relations law, and is defined by section 47(1) of the Trade Disputes Act in its compound state, namely, “trade dispute”. According to section 47(1), trade dispute means any dispute between employers and workers, or between workers and workers, which is connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms of employment and physical conditions of work of any person. A related section is section 1(2) of the Trade Disputes Act, which states that unless the context otherwise requires “the dispute” means the trade dispute in question, and “party” means a party to the dispute. In other words, a trade dispute means any disagreement as to an occupation or employment in relation to the procurement ofa livelihood. 5. On Ingredients of a “trade dispute”- For a dispute to be declared a trade dispute within the meaning of section 47 of the Trade Disputes Act, all the ingredients in the section need not be present. This is because a trade dispute between employers and workers may not necessarily be one between workers and workers. In such a situation, it is difficult to apply the test that all the requirements must be present before a dispute can be termed a trade dispute. [A-G., Oyo State v. NLC (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt. 821); NURTW V. Ogbodo (1998) 2 NWLR (Pt. 537) 189 referred to and distinguished. 6. On whether complaint by trade union of refusal by employer to deduct check-off dues does not constitute a trade dispute - The question of recognition of a trade union or deduction of check-off dues is quite important, because unless it is resolved, a trade union is in no position to discharge its functions towards its members. Consequently, the question is one that is connected with the employment or non-employment, or terms of employment or conditions of work of any person. Wages of workers are always matters dealt with in the terms or conditions of work or service, so too is the question as to what deductions to make from a worker’s wages or salaries, a matter that is also statutorily provided for under section 5 of the Labour Act. So, when a union complains that an employer is refusing to deduct check-off dues in respect of employees or workers who are eligible to be its members, that complaint is a trade dispute and can properly be heard under the dispute resolution processes of the Trade Disputes Act. 7. On How a trade dispute is declared and what it entails- The word “declare” means to say something officially or publicly. It also means to state something firmly and clearly. To declare a trade dispute, therefore, means to state officially or publicly that a trade dispute exists. Thus, where an employer, or a union or group of workers, thinks there exist a trade dispute between it and the opposing party, the formal declaration in writing of the dispute to the opposing party is a prerequisite if the processes under the Trade Disputes Act are to be legally and validly activated. This is because, section 1(1) of the Trade Disputes Act provides that “where a trade dispute exists or is apprehended, the provisions of this Part of this Act shall apply in relation to the dispute”. The trade dispute must first exist or be apprehended before the provisions of the Trade Disputes Act can be activated. The process that enables the court to know the existence of a trade dispute or its apprehension is the formal process of declaration. 8. On Meaning of apprehension of a trade dispute and who can declare same - It is not only the Minister that can declare a trade dispute. This is so for the following reasons. In the first place, section 1(1) of the Trade Disputes Act talks of a trade dispute existing or being apprehended. The word “apprehend” or “apprehension” is not defined under the Trade Disputes Act. The meaning of the word “apprehend”, however, is either to catch somebody and arrest him as with the police, or to understand or recognize something. “Apprehension” then assumes the meaning of worry or fear that something unpleasant may happen (anxiety), or the act of capturing or arresting somebody. In the context of the Trade Disputes Act therefore, to apprehend a trade dispute would mean to understand or to recognize the trade dispute. Apprehension of a trade dispute, therefore, means anxiety over, that is worry or fear that a trade dispute would or may happen. In this sense, that a trade dispute exists or the fear that it may possibly exist are two different things. This is the sense in which section 1(1) of the Trade Disputes Act should be understood. Once it is shown that a trade dispute exists or is apprehended, only then would the processes laid down in the other provisions of the Trade Disputes Act become activated. And section 4 of the Trade Disputes Act, which deals with the Minister’s power to apprehend a trade dispute, is but just one of the processes through which a trade dispute may be settled, not the only process. Employers, or workers, or a trade union as the case may be, can declare a trade dispute, which the Minister, acting under the power conferred on him under the Trade Disputes Act can refer to the Industrial Arbitration Panel or such’ other permitted dispute resolution institution.   9. On Scope of power of the Minister to apprehend a trade dispute under section 4 of the Trade Disputes Act When section 4 of the Trade Disputes Act gives the Minister the power to apprehend a trade dispute and deal with it through any of the steps listed in that section, the idea is for the Minister to nip the trade dispute in the bud, that is, to stop or arrest it before it gets out of hand. This is why section 4 starts with the words, “Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Act....” By this provision, the Minister need not wait for the settlement process of section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act or bother about the provisions of sections 1 and 2, before he can act under section 4. 10. On Procedure for settling trade dispute - Aside from sections 4 and 16 (the later permitting the Minister upon the receipt of a mediator’s report to refer a trade dispute directly to the National Industrial Court and thus by-pass the other processes), Part 1 of the Trade Disputes Act establishes a fairly rigid procedure for settling trade disputes. By section 3, the parties must first attempt to settle the dispute among themselves. If this fails, they must appoint a mediator to try and settle the dispute. Where this fails, the Minister must be notified under section 5, who must then either appoint a conciliator under section 7 or refer the matter to the Industrial Arbitration Panel under section 8, or to the National Industrial Court under section 16 (if the matter is a special case as defined by that section), or set up a board of inquiry to look into the matter. Where the conciliator cannot resolve the matter, the Minister must be notified. Here, he is at liberty to refer the matter to the Industrial Arbitration Panel. Where any party objects to an award of the Industrial Arbitration Panel, then the Minister is required to refer the matter to the National Industrial Court, the decision of which, according to sections 13(2) and 20(3), shall be final and binding, except on questions of fundamental rights where appeal lies as of right to the Court of Appeal. 11. On Meaning and purposes of a “trade union” Section 47(1) of the Trade Disputes Act, defines a “trade union” as one having the same meaning as in the Trade Unions Act. And by section 1(1) of the Trade Unions Act, trade union means any combination of workers or employers the purpose of which is to regulate the terms and conditions of employment of workers. The purpose of a trade union is, however, not restricted to regulating the terms and conditions of employment of workers. By section 1(2) of the Trade Unions Act, it includes the provision of benefits for its members. All this presupposes that a trade union is set up for the purpose of safe-guarding the interests of its members, who may be workers or employers as the case may be. In this capacity, they are representatives of their members in matters pertaining to the members including issues of trade disputes. So, when section 47(1) defines a trade dispute as dispute between employers and workers or between workers and workers, a trade union has the capacity to act for workers if they are its members or eligible to be its members. 12. On Authority of trade union to represent workers and whether a trade union qualifies as a worker - The authority of a trade union to represent its members or seek to unionize eligible members has long been recognized, given the general powers granted to trade unions under the trade union law of Nigeria. However, the fact that a trade union is a combination of workers does not make the Respondent in its corporate capacity a worker for purposes of section 47 of the Trade Disputes Act. 13. On Compulsory and automatic recognition of trade unions by employers - Previously, recognition of trade unions by employers was not automatic and compulsory. However, today recognition is compulsory and automatic, by the combined effects of sections 5(7) and 24(1) of the Trade Unions Act (as amended) by Decree No.1 of 1999 and section 5(3) (a) and (b) of the LabourAct. 14. On Formation of trade union and whether the Companies and Allied Matters Act applies to a trade union - Section 1(3) (a) of the Trade Unions Act provides that a trade union within the meaning of the Act shall not be treated as having been formed by reason only of any agreement between an employer and persons employed by him as to the terms and conditions of that employment. And by section 2(1) of the Act, a trade union shall not perform any act in furtherance of the purposes for which it has been formed unless it has been registered under the Act. But section 44 of the Act is quite forceful in stating that the Companies and Allied Matters Act shall not apply to any trade union or to any federation of trade unions or central labour organization; and the registration of any such body under the latter Act shall be void. Section 2(3) of the Trade Unions Act proceeds to criminalize any act done by a body, not registered as a trade union, in furtherance of matters permitted of trade unions only. In this case, the Joint Consultative Council within the Corporate Affairs Commission is not a trade union within the meaning of the Trade Unions Act. So, the JCC could not act as a trade union particularly as there is recognized in the Trade Unions Act a trade union, the Respondent union, with the jurisdictional power to unionize staffs who are eligible to be members of the said Respondent union. 15. On Automatic registration and recognition of trade unions and criminality of an employer’s refusal to recognize a trade union - By section 24(1) of the Trade Unions Act and section 5(7) of the Labour Act, the registration and recognition of trade unions specified in the Third Schedule to the Act are automatic with all the incidents of trade unions. Section 24(2) then goes on to impose criminal sanctions against an employer who deliberately refuses to accord recognition to such a trade union. 16. On Duty on employee to deduct check-off dues in respect of workers who are eligible to be members of a union and freedom of a member to opt out of the union - Recognition of trade union is meaningless unless related to or tied to the deduction of check-off dues. By virtue of section l6A of the Trade Unions Act (as amended), regarding workers’ unions, there is no doubt that the law intends and stipulates for compulsory recognition and deduction of check-off dues in respect of workers who are eligible to be member of a union. Where however, the worker no longer wishes to be a member he is free to opt out of the union. In other words, eligible member of a union are deemed to be members unless they voluntarily, and in writing, decide otherwise. Workers can only opt out individually and in writing. Representative action is not permitted in this regard. 17. On Constitutionality of compulsory recognition and automatic deduction of check-off dues - The compulsory recognition and automatic deduction of check-off dues as stipulated in the law is not unconstitutional. Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees freedom of association. Although recognition of a trade union is mandatory and deduction of check-off dues automatic, each worker has the freedom and liberty to opt out of trade unionism. That this freedom exists certainly cancels out whatever compulsion can be said to exist and so would have rendered the law unconstitutional. The freedom to associate under section 40 of the 1999 Constitution certainly includes the freedom to dis-associate or not to associate. Section 5(3) of the Labour Act and section 16A of the Trade Unions Act certainly accommodate this and consequently they are not unconstitutional. In other words, the recognition and automatic deduction of check-off dues provisions are not unconstitutional and accord with the freedom of association enshrined in section 40 of the 1999 Constitution. 18. On Mandatory duty on employer to deduct check-off dues - The duty to deduct check-off dues is mandatory and no employer is permitted to choose whether or not to deduct. To the extent that this is the provision of the law, it is not unlawful. The worker is not, under the law, expected to specifically authorize the employer to deduct the check-off dues. All he can do is, if he so wishes, write to the employer directing the employer to stop the deduction of the check-off dues. This he must do as an individual and in writing. This is because, section 16A of the Trade Unions Act (as amended) by Decree No.4 of 1996 obliges an employer to make the deduction in respect of a. worker who is eligible to be a member. Eligibility, therefore, is the yardstick, test or standard for determining deductibility. And the employer has no choice in the matter. 19. On Restructuring of trade unions and jurisdictional scope of Amalgamated Union of Public Corporations, Civil Service Technical and Recreational Service Employees - The need to streamline trade unions in the country over the years has led to the restructuring of trade unions, culminating in the restructuring exercises under Decrees 4 and 26 of 1996. Under those laws, trade unions were restructured into named unions listed out and their jurisdictional scopes provided for all in the Third Schedule to the Trade Unions Act (as amended). In Part A of the third Schedule to the Trade Unions Act, the Respondent union is listed as the second. And in Part B of the same Third Schedule, its jurisdictional scope, the second in the list and as amended by section 10 of Decree 1 of 1999, is as follows: All junior staff employed in the Federal and State Corporations; Civil Service Employees classified as technical, workers of sports commissions and stadia; Pubic Recreation Clubs by whatever name called; swimming pools; amusement centers including carnivals, circuses, zoological gardens and services similarly classified excluding Radio, Television, NITEL, NIPOST, Railways, Nigeria Airways and other corporation workers already unionized. 20. On Constitutionality of a restrictive trade union regime in the country - Having to restructure trade unions along rigid lines of named unions with circumscribed membership was necessitated by the need to check the proliferation of trade unions, which is capable of yielding to a chaotic labour regime. The Supreme Court has given its stamp of approval to this fact [ v. Registrar of Trade Unions [ 1 NWLR (Pt.4) 755], and even went on to confirm the constitutionality of a restrictive trade union regime in the country. To the Supreme Court, section 37 of the 1979 Constitution (now section 40 of the 1999 Constitution) was not infringed by such a restrictive trade union regime. In any event, such a restrictive trade union regime was justified under the equivalent provision of section 45 of the 1999 Constitution. Therefore, it would seem that the current restrictive and highly compartmentalized trade union regime is constitutional. 21. On Meaning of public corporation and whether Corporate Affairs Commission is a corporation in the context of section 10 of decree 1 of 1999 - The Trade Unions Act does not define the word “Corporation”. However, a public corporation means: a corporation that is created by the State as an agency in the administration of civil government. Also termed Political Corporation. A government - owned corporation that engages in activities that benefit the general public (usually), while remaining financially independent. Such a corporation is managed by a publicly appointed board. It is also termed Government Corporation, or Public-benefit Corporation. In this case, the Appellant Corporate Affairs Commission fits this description. The Industrial Arbitration Panel was, therefore, correct when it held that the Appellant is a Federal government corporation created under the Companies and Allied Matters Act, Cap 59, Laws of the Federal of Nigeria 1990. Being a Federal government corporation, all of its staff who are junior workers are eligible to be members of the Respondent union and so can be unionized. 22. On Whether the National Industrial Court is bound by formal requirements ordinarily prevalent the regular court - The National Industrial Court is not bound by formal requirements ordinarily prevalent in the regular courts. By section 36(3) of the Trade Disputes Act, the court may regulations procedure and proceedings as it thinks fit, and shall not be bound to act in any formal matter, neither is it bound by any rules of evidence, although it may inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks just. The only proviso here is the provision of the Trade Disputes Act itself or the Rules of the National Industrial Court made thereunder A look at the National Industrial Court Rules provides ample guidance and justification for the court to act as both a court of appeal and that of first instance, when the issue is whether to allow fresh points or facts to be canvassed before it. For example, Rule 13(3) provides that upon appearance of the part therefore the court, the court may give directions stipulating the time within which the parties shall file their memoranda and other documents upon which they intend to rely for the prosecution or defence of their claim. And by Rule 18, the court may of its own motion or on application of any party order any person to attend before the court as a witness or to produce any document. Rule 20(1) then goes on to permit oral hearing of matters coming before the court. 23. On Power of the National Industrial Court to take new issues and fresh evidence on matters before it - What all this portends is that the court is permitted by its enabling law and rules of procedure to retry issues or even introduce new issues in respect of even matters that come to it as appeals from the Industrial Arbitration Panel. Moreover, the court in entertaining a matter can take oral hearing and fresh evidence. In the instant case, therefore, the argument of the Respondent that the Appellant could not canvass new issues and introduce documents not introduced at the Industrial Arbitration Panel was consequently erroneous and was discountenanced.