Download PDF
NATIONAL UNION OF HOTEL AND PERSONAL SERVICES WORKERS AND 1. PALISO NIGERIALIMITED 2. PELLEGRINI NIGERIA CATERING LIMITED (NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT) HON. JUSTICE B.A. ADEJUMO - PRESIDENT PROF. B.B. KANYIP MEMBER BARR. M.B. DADDA MEMBER SUIT NO: NIC/5/2004 DATE OF RULING APRIL 27, 2006 EVIDENCE Onus of proof of assertion - On whom lies. LABOUR LAW Collective agreement - Whether binding on a non - party thereto - Sections 15 and 20, Trade Disputes LABOUR LAW Trade dispute - Resolution of - Interpretation Jurisdiction of National Industrial Court – Whether appropriate means of resolving same. ISSUES 1. Whether the interpretation jurisdiction of the court is an appropriate means of resolving the issues in the case. 2 Whether the 2 Respondent was privy to Exhibit A, the collective agreement, as to be bound by its provisions. FACTS The Applicant filed the suit for the interpretation of the disciplinary provisions contained in the collective agreement Exhibit “A” dated 1St June, 1999 between the Applicant and the Respondents, especially the Respondent, on the issue whether the summary dismissal of four staff on 22” February, 2000 by the 1St Respondent, without query or any form of fair hearing for allegedly being in possession of soap, remnant of cakes and meat, was lawful and valid under Article 20 of the said collective agreement. The Applicant also prayed for an order of reinstatement and/or adequate monetary compensation in favour of the said four workers. The parties agreed and filed written briefs of argument in addition to oral arguments. The Applicant s case was that on 21st February, 2000, four workers of the 1st Respondent who were on duty at the Texaco Overseas Co. Funiwa Platform were coming out during crew change for off-time and were searched. Found on them were remnants of cake, meat and soaps given to them by the camp-boss. That the soaps were given to the workers or their use, but they did not use them as they usually use medicated soap. That the workers explained to the superintendent that the remnants of cake and meat found on them were allowed by the camp-boss. On 22 February, 2000, the four workers were summarily dismissed without any investigation of their claim of innocence. The Applicant contended that the summary dismissal of the workers was improper, wrongful and illegal. The 1st Respondent was a labour contractor engaged by the 2” Respondent to supply it with workers. The 2 Respondent was a catering company contracted by Texaco to cater for its workers at its offshore location. HELD (Dismissing the suit): 1. On When inappropriate to invoke the interpretation jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court - The interpretation jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court is an inappropriate means of resolving triable issues. The court’s interpretation jurisdiction is not the appropriate means of resolving trade disputes, especially where the processes of Part 1 of the Trade Disputes Act would be more appropriate. The court has consequently frowned on the use of its interpretation jurisdiction as a means of side-tracking the processes of Part 1 of the TDA. In the instant case, the issues of summary dismissal, reinstatement, or the award of adequate compensation, etc, all conjure up matters of trade dispute for which the Applicant ought to have utilized the processes of Part 1 of the Trade Disputes Act. All of these issues were not issues for which affidavit evidence, for instance, would resolve. The interpretation jurisdiction of the court was therefore inappropriate in resolving the issues. 2. On Whether collective agreement binding on a non-party - Sections 15 and 20 of the Trade Disputes Act contemplate only the Minister responsible for labour or the parties to a collective agreement as those who can activate the interpretation jurisdiction of the court. By extension and in line with the privity rule, only parties to a collective agreement sought to be interpreted can benefit or suffer from it. In the instant case, the 2 Respondent, not being a party to the collective agreement, had no case to answer in the matter. 3. On Whom lies onus of proof of assertion He who asserts must prove. In the Instant case, the Applicant could not make out a case against the 1” Respondent for which the National Industrial Court should intervene.