Download PDF
1. PERFORMING MUSICIANS EMPLOYERS’ ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA ANORS 2. CHIEF TONY A. OKOROJI 3. TONY ONE WEEK MUONAGOR 4. RONI IRABOR 5. NEHIZA ARASE 6. SEYL ALLEN 7. KING WALEMAN 8. WILLIE WORKMAN 9. PATRICE ADEJOH 10. ULTIMATE MURPHY 11. LAMBERT ATO BEN AND 1. FEMI LASODE AND OTHERS 2. ZAAKY ADZEE 3. COACH EDDY BORHA 4. BLESSING IDOWU AKINNEHIN 5. MERCY ADISHI (NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT) HON. JUSTICE B.A. ADEJUMO - PRESIDENT PROF. B.B. KAYIP - MEMBER MRS V.N. OKOBI - MEMBER SUIT NO: NIC/16M/2003 DATE OF RULING - JULY8, 2005 LABOUR LAW Collective agreement -Meaning of -Whether includes constitution of an employers’ association. LABOUR LAW Inter or intra-union disputes - Nature of -Distinction of from trade disputes. LABOUR LAW Intra-union disputes -Jurisdiction of National Industrial Court to entertain -Appellate nature of. NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT Intra-union disputes - Jurisdiction of National Industrial Court to entertain - Appellate nature of. WORD AND PHRASES Collective agreement –Meaning. ISSUE Whether the court has original jurisdiction to hear an intra-union dispute. FACTS The Applicants filed an originating application at the National Industrial Court for the interpretation’ of rules 8, 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the constitution of the Performing Musicians Employers’ Association of Nigeria (PMAN), the 1st Applicant; and to determine certain questions. The application was supported by a 19-paragraph affidavit and 8 exhibits. The originating application was accompanied by a motion on notice for a number of interim orders of injunction. The motion on notice was supported by 19-paragraph affidavit. In response to the Applicants’ processes, the Respondents raised a preliminary objection to the action, in which they prayed the court for an order striking out the suit in its entirety. The grounds for the preliminary objection were, inter alia that the matter was not a trade dispute; that the constitution of the 1St Applicant did not amount to a collective agreement which the court could be asked to interpret; that it could only be cognizable and/or entertained by the State High Court under, the provisions of section 272 of the 1999 Constitution; there was none who was in the employment of the other; that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the action. Before the preliminary objection could be heard, the Applicants filed another motion on notice seeking, among other things, to join some 8 individuals as Respondents in the matter. The court heard the preliminary objection first and took arguments from both sides. HELD (Diminishing the suit) 1. On Whether inter and intra-union disputes are different from trade dispute - Inter and intra-union disputes are different species of disputes from trade disputes. The jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court in inter and intra-union dispute is appellate, not original. 2. On Whether the National Industrial Court has original jurisdiction to entertain intra-union dispute - The provision of section 1A of the Trade Disputes Act, as inserted by Decree 47 of 1992 bars commencement of an action relating” to a trade dispute, inter or intra union dispute in any court of law, and the National Industrial Court is also a court of law. The intention of the framers of Decree 47 of 1992 must be that inter and intra union disputes should first go through the processes of Part 1 of the Trade Disputes Act, given that the processes are not judicial in the strict sense. Consequently, the jurisdictions of the National Industrial Court in cases of inter and intra-union disputes are appellate and not original. To hold otherwise will mean that in relation to inter and intra-union disputes, the court will be just a one-stop court with litigants not having the benefit of a second review or appellate hearing except on questions of fundamental rights, the only ground presently allowed for appeals to the Court Appeal from the decisions of the court. The instant matter was an intra-un dispute and the court therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain same as a court first instance. [National Union of Hotels and Personal Services Work (NUHPSW) v. National Union of Food, Beverage and Tobacco Employ (NUFBTE) [ NLLR (Pt. 1) 286referred to]. 3. On Meaning of “collective agreement”-. By section 47 of the Trade Disputes Act, a collective agreement is any agreement writing for the settlement of disputes and relating to the terms of employment of physical conditions of work concluded between - (a) an employer, a group of employers or one or more organization representative of employers, on the one hand; and (b) one or more trade unions or organizations representing workers, or the duly appointed representative of any body of workers, on the other hand. The above meaning does not include the constitution of the 1st Applicant. The said constitution is therefore not a collective agreement.