Download PDF
The claimant filed this Originating Summons on the 21st March 2013 praying for the determination of the following questions: 1. Whether having regards to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the Trade Unions Act Cap. T. 14 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) 2004, claimant’s letter Ref. No. NASU/UV/114/Vol. I/17 of 9th July, 2012, letter with Ref. No. NASU/AKSS/UV/Vol. II/49 dated 7th December, 2011, letter dated 23rd August, 2012 and the defendant’s letter Ref. No. AKSU/REG/12, the claimant has not expressly indicated its willingness and duty to unionize its members in the employment of the 1st defendant. 2. If the answer to question 1 above is in the positive, whether having regards to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the Trade Unions Act Cap. T. 14 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) 2004, claimant’s letter Ref. No. NASU/UV/114/Vol. I/17 of 9th July, 2012, letter with Ref. No. NASU/AKSS/UV/Vol. II/49 dated 7th December, 2011, letter dated 23rd August, 2012 and the defendant’s letter Ref. No. AKSU/REG/12, the claimant is not entitled to automatic recognition by the defendant. 3. If the answer to question 2 above is in the negative (to wit that the claimant is not entitled to automatic recognition by the defendant) whether having regards to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the Trade Unions Act Cap. T. 14 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) 2004, claimant’s letter Ref. No. NASU/UV/114/Vol. I/17 of 9th July, 2012, letter with Ref. No. NASU/AKSS/UV/Vol. II/49 dated 7th December, 2011, letter dated 23rd August, 2012 letter 7/12/2011, 23/8/12 and defendant’s letter dated 4/9/2012, the defendants have not had REASONABLE TIME IN LAW to accord recognition to the claimant. 4. Whether having regards to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the Trade Unions Act Cap. T. 14 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) 2004, claimant’s letter Ref. No. NASU/UV/114/Vol.I/17 of 9th July, 2012, NASU/UV/114/Vol. I/18 of 10th July, 2012, letter with Ref. No. NASU/AKSS/UV/Vol. II/49 dated 7th December, 2011, and the defendant’s letter Ref. No. AKSU/REG/12, the action of the defendant in not according recognition to the plaintiff does not amount to UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICE by the defendant. 5. And if the answer to question 2 or 3 above is in the positive whether by the provisions of the Trade Unions Act Cap. T. 14 Laws of the Federation, 2004 and the Constitution of Non-Academic Staff Union of Educational and Associated Institutions, the claimant’s letter of 9/7/2012, 10/7/2012, the defendant was not in law bound to deduct union dues and remit same to the claimant. The claimant then went on to seek the following reliefs against the defendant: 1. A declaration that the claimant had indicated it’s willingness to unionize its members in the employment of the defendants. 2. A declaration that the claimant is entitled to recognition and right to operate thereof in the 1st defendant. 3. A declaration that the conduct of the defendants in not according recognition to the claimant is an act of UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICE. 4. A declaration that the claimant is entitled to union dues from its members in the employment of the defendants. 5. An order of this Honourable Court that the defendants accord immediate recognition to the claimant. 6. An order of this Honourable Court directing the defendants to deduct union dues henceforth from members of the claimant in the employment of defendants and remit same to the claimant. In support of the Originating Summons is a 19 paragraph affidavit sworn to by Emmanuel O. Amalu, State Secretary of the claimant to which is annexed six exhibits marked UBO 1 to UBO 6. Accompanying the Originating Summons is a written address in support dated 19th March 2013. In reaction, the defendants filed a 19 paragraph counter affidavit sworn to on the 11th November 2013 by Raphael Ukeme a Senior Administrative Staff of the 1st defendant and a written address in support in which the defendants raised a Preliminary Objection to the jurisdiction of this court. The claimant filed a counter affidavit which was sworn to by the State Secretary on the 17th January 2014 and to which is annexed two exhibits UBO A and UBO B in reaction to the objection. A written address in response to the objection and a reply on point of law to the defendants’ address was filed. The defendants in turn filed a reply on point of law to the preliminary objection on the 28th January 2014. Counsel adopted their respective written addresses. The facts upon which the claimant has premised its questions for determination and the reliefs sought are as contained in paragraphs 5 to 14 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons. To briefly state the facts, the claimant states that it is one of the registered Trade Unions. That it has inaugurated a Branch in the 1st defendant on 27th June 2012, and conducted an election where Branch Officers were elected to serve for a period of four years. That this was communicated to the defendants vide its letter dated 9th July 2012. On the 10th July 2012, the claimant again wrote a letter to the defendants to begin deductions of check off dues. The Branch Secretary also wrote the defendants informing them that the elected officers would pay a courtesy call on them. The defendants wrote back that they do not recognize the elected officers of the union; and have refused to recognize the branch union, refused to deduct union dues from its members allow the union operate in the 1st defendant. The position of the defendants is that non of its non-academic staff is a member of the claimant neither has anyone of them ever attended a meeting with the claimant for any purpose be it election or otherwise. That the non-academic staff of the 1st defendant did not authorize the claimant to commence this suit on their behalf and the claimant being a voluntary body cannot operate or be seen to speak or act for non members of its body. Learned counsel to the claimant raised two issues for determination as follows: 1. Whether or not having regards to the Third Schedule Parts A and B of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999, Section 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, the Trade Unions Act Cap T4, LFN 2004 and exhibit UBO 1 to UBO 5 etc, the claimant is not entitled to automatic recognition by the defendants’ to function or unionize its members in 1st defendant. 2. Whether the defendants are not in breach of their statutory duty to deduct union dues and remit same to the claimant. He submitted that the claimant was established by law and is one of the Trade Unions under the Third Schedule Part A of the Trade Unions Act and listed as No 27 therein. That the jurisdictional scope covers non-academic workers of Public and Private owned Institutions. He submitted that by the provisions of Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution as amended, every person is guaranteed the freedom to assemble and associate with other persons and may form or belong to any trade union or any other association for the protection of his interests. He submitted that non academic staff of the 1st defendant have the constitutional right to associate with the claimant and belong to it as union members. That in like manner, the claimant being a juristic person has a constitutional right to organize and associate with the non academic staff of the 1st defendant. He submitted that the restriction to this right is contained in section 45 (1) of the Constitution. He referred to the facts deposed to in paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the supporting affidavit and exhibits UBO1 to UBO 5 as evidence of the steps taken by the claimant to set up its Branch in the 1st defendant. He referred to exhibit UBO 6 written by the defendants and submitted that the letter is evidence of the defendants refusal to accord it recognition. Counsel then posed a question: whether the defendants in law can clog the rights of the claimant to unionize its members under the cover of seeking the approval of the Governing Council of the 1st defendant. He submitted that once a trade union indicates its willingness to unionize workers within its jurisdictional scope, the union is entitled to automatic recognition by the workers employer. He submitted that the powers and duties of a trade union includes the right to establish branches in any organisation and that the defendants have a statutory obligation to have accorded it automatic recognition referring to Section 5 (7) of the Trade Unions Act Cap T14, LFN 2004 and Mix & Bake Flour Industries v NUFBTE [1978-2006] DJNIC 467. He stated that the time frame between when the claimant informed the defendants of the inauguration of the Branch and the filing of this action is a period of fourteen months. That this period is a reasonable time for the defendants to put their house in order and comply with mandatory constitutional provisions. He argued that the reason given by the defendants in exhibit UBO 6 that its Governing Council had not yet given approval for the claimant to operate is not one of the grounds for restricting the claimant from enjoying the right conferred on it by the Constitution. He submitted that the defendants are in breach of the Constitutional rights of the claimant. It was his submission that the conduct of the defendants does not conform with best practices locally and internationally and amounts to an unfair labour practice as its action is deliberate and shows a total dislike for the claimant. Counsel referred to the provisions of Section 17 (a) and (b) of the Trade Unions Act and submitted that the defendants have a statutory duty to deduct union dues from its member’s salaries and remit same to it which is also in line with Rule 17 of its constitution. He submitted that the defendants’ refusal to deduct union dues from its members’ salaries is a breach of its statutory duty. He urged the court to grant the claims of the claimant. Learned counsel to the defendant formulated the following issues for determination: 1. Whether by the provisions of Section 40 of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 and S.1 (a-b) of the constitution of the claimant, the claimant can enter the 1st defendant and without any consent unionize its workers who have not voluntarily consented to its membership and proceed to seek recognition from the 1st defendant or put it another way whether the claimant is not a body whose membership is voluntary and need the consent of the non academic staff to act for them. 2. Whether by the provision of Section 40 of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 and section 1 (a-l) of the Constitution of the claimant, a member of the claimant union is not only free to become a member, can also freely opt out of being a member of the claimant. 3. Whether the claimant can commence this suit when it is yet to unionize the staff of the 1st defendant or whether the claimant has the necessary locus standi to maintain this suit. 4. Whether the action of the claimant is not statute barred by virtue of section 1(1) of the Public Officers Protection Laws Cap 104, Laws of Akwa Ibom State 2000. The 4th issue is raised by way of preliminary objection. He submitted that by the provisions of section 1 (1) of the Public Officers Protection Law Cap 104, Laws of Akwa Ibom State 2000, no legal action shall lie or be instituted against the act, neglect or default of a Public Officer in the performance of its public duty unless such action is commenced within three months of the act or neglect. He submitted that to ascertain if the suit is statute barred, the court must look at the accrual of the cause of action of the claims of the claimant and the date of the commencement of this suit. He argued that the cause of action accrued when the defendants’ wrote exhibit UBO 6 on the 4th September 2012; and this suit commenced on 12th March 2012. It was his contention that it is outside the three months period allowed and the action is therefore statute barred. He cited Savannah Bank of Nigeria v Pan Atlantic Shipping Agencies Ltd [1987] NWLR (Pt 49) 212, Balogun v Panalpina (Nig) Ltd [1999] 1 NWLR (Pt 585) 66. Counsel submitted that by the provisions of Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution as amended and section 1 (a-l) of the claimants constitution, membership with the claimant is voluntary and its non academic staff cannot be compelled to become members of the claimant as such will amount to an infringement of their rights. That by the provisions of section 1 (a-l) of the claimant’s constitution, any non academic staff of the 1st defendant must fulfill the requirement of membership before being admitted and subject to the jurisdiction of the claimant. He submitted that the defendants have denied in paragraphs 5,6,7,8,9,11 of the counter affidavit stated that none of its non-academic staff is a member of the claimant and have not authorized this suit. He argued that by this denial, the claimant must prove who its members are among its non academic staff and until the claimant does so, this court cannot order the defendant to make deductions from the salaries of its non-academic staff and remit to the claimant as union dues. He cited R.T.N.A.C.H.P.N v V.M.& H.W.U.N [2008] 2 NWLR (Pt 1072) 575. He submitted that there is right to associate and a right to opt out. He stated that after the defendants met with the non-academic staff as deposed to in paragraph 12 and 13 of the counter affidavit, the staff of the 1st defendant including those mentioned in exhibit UBO 5 and UBO 6 voluntarily rescinded membership of the claimant and have not complained of their right to associate with the claimant. Counsel submitted that by the provisions of Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution, it is only when the non academic staff of the defendants become members of the claimant that it may commence this action on their behalf. That there is no evidence the claimant has the consent of its non-academic staff to file this action and it therefore lacks locus standi citing Ostanicino Shipping Company Ltd v The Owners of MT Batai [2012] All FWLR (Pt 614) 1587-1588. He then submitted that the case is incompetent, statute barred and should be dismissed. Replying to the preliminary objection on limitation and locus standi, learned counsel to the claimant referred to Section 1 (1) of the Public Officers Protection Act and submitted that the law has two limbs. The first is that the cause of action arises at a date certain and final and the suit must be filed within three months. The 2nd limb is an exception to the three month period where there is a continuance of damage or injury. He submitted that the facts of this suit and exhibit UBO 6 show that there is continuance of damage or injury as the defendants have refused to accord immediate recognition to the claimant and has obstructed the process of unionizing the non academic staff in its employment. Counsel replying to the issue of locus standi submitted that the provisions of Section 7 of the Trade Union Act clothes the claimant with locus standi to unionize non-academic staff in the employment of the 1st defendant citing May & Baker v NUFBTE supra. On defence counsel’s address titled rejoinder on points of law to the preliminary objection, I find that it is simply a restatement of facts to which the claimant has no right to reply to. There is no reply to issues of law raised by the claimant in this rejoinder. This address is therefore discountenanced. I have carefully considered the processes filed, submissions of counsel and authorities cited and will begin this judgement with the determination of the preliminary objection raised. The defendants’ have submitted that this action is statute barred and have relied on the provision of Section 1 of the Public Officers Protection Law CAP 104 Laws of Akwa Ibom State which is reproduced below: Where any action, prosecution, or other proceeding is commenced against any person for any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of any law or of any public duty or authority, or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of any such law, duty or authority, the action, or proceeding shall not lie or be instituted unless it is commenced within three months next after the act, neglect or default complained of, or in case of a continuance of damage or injury, within three months next after the ceasing of such action. A cause of action is said to be statute barred if in respect of its proceedings it cannot be brought because the period laid down by the Limitation law has elapsed See Egbe v Adefarasin [1987] 1 NWLR (Pt 47) 1 at 20, Udoh Trading Coy Ltd v Abere [2001] 11 NWLR (Pt 723)114. The Law recognises some exceptions and this is where there has been a continuance of damage or injury. It is pertinent at this juncture to reproduce paragraphs 5, 7, 11 and 12 of the claimant’s affidavit and paragraph 12 and 13 of the counter affidavit as follows: 5. That on 7th December 2011 the claimant wrote a letter to the 2nd defendant informing him that the claimant wanted to inaugurate a branch of the claimant in 1st defendant. The letter is annexed hereto as exhibit UBO 1. 7. That subsequently, on 27th June 2012, non-academic staff of the 1st defendant (members of the claimant) conducted a very peaceful election and elected officers for the branch to serve for a period of four (4) years commencing 27/6/2012. 11. That on the 23rd August 2012, Mr Bright Udosen the elected Branch Secretary of the claimant in the defendant’s employment wrote to the defendants informing the defendants that the elected officers of the claimant in the defendant would pay a courtesy call on the 2nd defendant on 5th September 2012. The letter is annexed hereto as exhibit “UBO” 5. 12. That on 4th September 2012, the defendants wrote to Mr Bright Udosen that the defendants do not recognize the elected officers of the claimant as union officials. The letter is exhibited hereto as exhibit “UBO” 6. The defendants in paragraph 12 and 13 of their counter affidavit state as follows: 12. That paragraphs 11 and 12 are true but the 2nd defendant subsequently held a meeting with all the non-academic staff of the 1st defendant on the 5th August 2012 and intimated them of the position of the Visitor to the University’s position on trade unionism as of now and all the non academic staff agreed to not go into trade unionism for the time being. 13. That since after the meeting, none of the non academic staff has volunteered to either be members of the claimant nor attend any meeting of the union held. By the defendants’ deposition in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit, they have admitted that they have refused to recognize the claimant’s branch union in the 1st defendant which had already been inaugurated by the claimant. In addition, the defendants by calling a meeting have taken steps to obstruct the organization of the non academic staff by the claimant. For as long as the defendants refuse to recognize the branch union, there is a continuance of damage and injury to the claimant. A fresh cause of action arises from time to time as often as damage is caused. See Aremo 11 v Adekanye [2004] 13 NWLR (Pt 891) 572, A-G Rivers State v A-G Bayelsa State [2013] 3 NWLR 123, Academic Staff Union of Universities v Dr Omoiya (unreported) Suit No. NIC/LA/63/2011; ruling delivered on April 18, 2012. I find that this action is not statute barred due to the refusal of the defendants’ to recognize the branch union and I so hold. The defendants are not protected by the Public Officers Protection Act. On the issue of locus standi, I find from the facts deposed to in paragraphs 3, 5,7 to 17 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons that the claimant has locus standi to institute this action as its rights as a registered trade union to organize the non academic staff of the 1st defendant and operate as a trade union have been violated and adversely affected by the conduct of the defendants. See Adesanya v President of Nigeria [1981]2 NCLR 358, Owodunni v Reg Trustees of Celestial CC [2000] 10 NWLR (Pt 675) 315 at 355. I shall now determine the questions raised by the claimant. There is no dispute between the parties that the claimant is a registered Trade Union and is listed as No. 27 with its jurisdictional scope defined in the Third Schedule, Part B, of the Trade Union Act (TUA) CAP T14 LFN 2004. This means that the claimant union has automatic registration and recognition under the Trade Unions Act with all the incidents of a trade union accorded it. I will now for the purpose of this judgement reproduce two of the claimant’s objects as stated in Rule 2 (2) (a) & (b) of the claimant’s constitution. (a) To organize all members and other person (s) qualified for membership, being Non Academic Employees of Universities, Polytechnics, Colleges of Education, Agriculture and Technology;…. (b) To settle and negotiate differences and dispute between the members of the Union and employers and other Trade Unions and persons, by collective bargaining or agreement, withdrawal of labour or otherwise. The documentary evidence shows that the claimant had by its letter exhibit UBO 1 informed the defendants of its intention to inaugurate a Branch in the 1st defendant and took steps to hold an inaugural meeting with the non academic staff on June 27, 2012 with 46 people in attendance as shown in exhibit UBO A and UBO B. This was a demonstration of its willingness to organize the non academic staff of the 1st defendant. The attendance is also an indication that the non academic staff freely consented to becoming members of the claimant. By exhibit UBO 2, it also informed the defendants that it had conducted elections and officers had been elected to hold positions. I therefore find that the claimant had inaugurated a Branch in the 1st defendant and I so hold. The Branch Secretary thereafter on behalf of the EXCO members of the newly inaugurated Branch wrote exhibit UBO 5 to the 2nd defendant in which he expressed their desire to pay him a courtesy call and formally present the first elected officers. The defendants replied the Branch Secretary as follows: Mr Bright Udosen September 04, 2012. Akwa Ibom State University Ikot Akpaden, Mkpat Enin L.G.A. Sir, RE: COURTESY CALL ON THE UNIVERSITY MANAGEMENT BY EXCO MEMBERS OF NASU Your Letter dated 23rd August 2012 as addressed to the Vice-Chancellor on the above subject matter, refers. As directed by the Vice-Chancellor, please be reminded that the University Management position on Trade Unions on the campus for now, remains as decided and directed by the Governing Council. Therefore, Management could only act as may be required when further directive is received from the Governing Council on Trade Union matters on the Campus. However, the Vice-Chancellor is very much disposed to meet with any staff of the University individually or collectively, but not as a union yet, to discuss any issue that would promote growth and development in the University. Please be duly informed and guided accordingly. Yours Faithfully S.J.Udoekong Registrar Now, Sections 5 (7) and 25 (1) of the Trade Unions Act Cap T14 LFN 2010 provides as follows: 5 (7) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, the Registrar, shall on the coming into effect of this section of this Act, register the trade unions specified in Part A and Part C of the Third Schedule to this Act; and on such registration the said trade unions shall have all the powers and duties of a trade union registered under this Act. 25. Recognition of registered trade union obligatory (1) For the purposes of collective bargaining all registered Unions in the employment of an employer shall constitute an electoral college to elect members who will represent them in negotiations with the employer. The combined effect of these two provisions is that the claimant is entitled to automatic recognition. I find that the letter written by the defendants to the Secretary of the Branch Union is a refusal by the defendants to recognize the claimant, a registered trade union. This is a violation of the provisions of Sections 5 (7) and 25 (1) of the Trade Union Act and I so hold. Recognition by an employer being compulsory and automatic, an employer has no choice in the matter. It is an unfair labour practice for the defendants to refuse to accord recognition to the claimant and I so hold. See Mix & Bake v NUFBTE [2004] 1 NLLR (Pt 2) 247, Corporate Affairs Commission v AUPCTRE [2004] 1 NLLR (Pt 1) 1, Mix & Bake v FBTSSA [2011] 25 NLLR (Pt 72) 357. Furthermore, Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution as amended provides that: Every person shall be entitled to assemble freely and associate with other persons, and in particular he may form or belong to any political party, trade union or any other association for the protection of his interests. Article 10 of the African Charter on Human Rights (ACHR) which Nigeria has domesticated provides that “Every individual shall have the right to free association provided that he abides by the law.” Nigeria has also ratified the ILO Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention 1948 (No.87) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention 1949 (No. 98). By virtue of the provisions of section 254C (2) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, this court is empowered to apply International Conventions Nigeria has ratified relating to labour. The Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining is one of the four core conventions/core labour standards adopted by the ILO on 18 June 1998 in the Philadelphia declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at work. The combined effect of Section 40, 1999 Constitution, Article 10 ACHR, ILO conventions No 87 and No 98 and section 25(1) of the Trade Unions Act is that the non academic staff of the 1st defendant have an unfettered constitutional right recognised and guaranteed locally and internationally to form or belong to a trade union and participate in trade union activities without fear of intimidation. It is a fundamental right entrenched in the Constitution which the defendants’ have no right to suspend by not recognising the Branch “as a union yet”. See A-G Ondo State v A-G Federation [2002] 6 SC (Pt 1) 1 at 27. I therefore hold that by its actions, the defendants’ have breached the provisions of Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution and by so doing have infringed on the fundamental rights of the claimant and its members in the 1st defendant. The facts deposed to by the defendants in paragraph 12 of their counter affidavit that the 2nd defendant held a meeting with the non academic staff on the Visitor’s position on trade union activities is nothing short of intimidation of the non academic staff, obstruction and interference by the employer in trade union activities. This meeting was held on August 5, 2012 after the defendants had been informed of the election of Officers and a request that union dues be deducted and remitted to the claimant. The right to trade unionism is a fundamental right of workers. The right is so important that employers are enjoined not to interfere with its exercise in any way. This statement of principle accords with section 40 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, and the International Labour Organisation (ILO) jurisprudence regarding the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention 1948 (No. 87), which establishes the right of workers’ and employers’ organisations “to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes” (Article 3) and recognizes the aims of such organisations as “furthering and defending the interests of workers and employers” (Article 10). See the decisions of this court in MHWUN v Comrade G.O. Olabode 7 Ors (unreported) Suit No NIC/LA/06/ 2010 judgement delivered on April 25 2012, Nestoil Plc v NUPENG (unreported) NIC/LA/08/2010, NASU v Vice Chancellor University of Agriculture Abeokuta (unreported) Suit No NIC/LA/15/2011 delivered on February 21 2012, NASU v Governing Council of Kwara Polytechnic Ilorin (unreported) Suit No NICN/LA/554/2012 delivered on June 3, 2013. The claimant has stated that in spite of its letter to the defendants to commence deduction of union dues from its members in the employment of 1st defendant, they have refused to do so. The defendants response in paragraph 15 and 16 of the counter affidavit is that the non academic staff are not members of the claimant, have not given their consent/request for deductions from their salaries nor authorized such to be paid to the claimant, and that the claimant has no right to make such demands. Now Section 17(a) and (b) of the Trade Unions Act provides: 17. Deductions from wages of union members Upon the registration and recognition of any of the trade unions specified in the Third Schedule to this Act, the employer shall – (a) make the deductions from wages of every worker who is a member of any of the trade unions for the purpose of paying contributions to the trade union so registered; and (b) remit such deductions to the registered office of the trade union within a reasonable period or such period as may be prescribed from time to time by the Registrar. This provision stipulates compulsory deduction of union dues no room for doubt as to whom and where the check off dues deducted is to be remitted. It is to the registered office of the claimant. This is the law. I hold that the defendants have contravened the law in failing to remit check off dues to the claimant’s registered office. See Mix & Bake v NUFBTE [2004] 1 NLLR (Pt 2) 247, Corporate Affairs Commission v AUPCTRE [2004] 1 NLLR (Pt 1) 1, Mix & Bake v FBTSSA [2011] 25 NLLR (Pt 72) 357 supra. For all the reasons given above, the claimant’s case succeeds. I hereby declare and make the following orders: 1. The claimant indicated its willingness to the defendants to organize the non academic staff of the 1st defendant. 2. The claimant has established a Branch in the 1st defendant, Akwa Ibom State University. 3. The conduct of the defendants in not according recognition to the claimant is an Unfair Labour Practice. 4. The claimant is entitled to union dues from its members in the employment of the 1st defendant. 5. The defendants are hereby ordered to accord Immediate Recognition to the claimant and its Branch in the 1st defendant and not interfere with or obstruct its right to operate and carry out its trade union activities. 6. The defendants are ordered to provide a conducive atmosphere for the claimant’s trade union activities. 7. The 1st defendant is hereby ordered to begin deduction of union dues forthwith from the members of the claimant in its employment and remit same to the claimant. 8. The defendants are to pay the sum of N25,000.00 costs to the claimant. Judgement is entered accordingly. ----------------------------------------- Hon Justice O.A.Obaseki-Osaghae