His Lordship, Hon. Justice Polycarp I. Hamman of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, PortHarcourt Judicial Division on Thursday 3rd May in a landmark judgment declared among others that NATIONAL UNION OF CHEMICAL, FOOTWEAR, RUBBER, LEATHER AND NON METALLIC PRODUCTS EMPLOYEES (Claimant) is the proper trade union that is legally entitled to organize and/or unionise the junior workers of the INDORAMA ELEME FERTILIZER AND CHEMICALS LIMITED INDORAMA PET AND PACKAGING LIMITED 2nd and 3rd Defendants that the NUPENG (1st Defendant) has no right or legal justification whatsoever to organize and/or unionise the junior workers of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants.
His Lordship further declared that NUPENG whether by itself or through its agents, privies, members or proxies is by this judgment restrained from further poaching or having anything whatsoever to do with the junior workers of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants.
By an Originating Summons dated and filed on 27th June, 2016, the Claimant commenced this suit therefore claims the following reliefs among others against the Defendants: A declaration that the Claimant is the proper trade union that is legally entitled to organize and/or unionize the junior workers of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants to the exclusion of the 1st Defendant, A declaration that the 1st Defendant has no right or legal justification whatsoever to organize and/or unionize the junior workers of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants.; An order of the Honourable Court directing the 2nd and 3rd Defendants to continue to pay the check-off dues of their junior workers to the Claimant and An order of injunction restraining the 1st Defendant whether by itself or through its agents, privies, members or proxies from further poaching or having anything whatsoever to do with the junior workers of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants.
The Claimant being a trade union duly registered under the Trade Unions Act Cap. T14 LFN, 2004 with its jurisdictional scope spelt out in Part B of the Third Schedule to the said Act is contending that the junior workers of the (2nd and 3rd ) Defendants fall under its jurisdictional scope. That while the 2nd Defendant being a limited liability company is engaged in the business of fertilizer production, the 3rd Defendant also a limited liability company is engaged in the manufacture of plastics used in the packaging of food and non-food products using the bye products of the 2nd Defendant.
The Claimant contends further that, it successfully unionized the junior workers of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants and wrote to the 2nd Defendant demanding for the deduction of check-off dues from the said workers in favour of the Claimant and both the 2nd and 3rd Defendants have been deducting and paying the deducted check-off dues to the Claimant effective September, 2015. And that while the Claimant was making arrangements for the conduct of election to elect its branch executive council members in the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, the 1st Defendant wrote to the 3rd Defendant requesting for deduction of union dues in its favour and the convening of a meeting with the management of the 3rd Defendant. That the 1st Defendant trade union also made efforts to hold its branch election for the workers of the 3rd Defendant despite its being aware that the said junior workers of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants have already been organized and unionized by the Claimant being the competent trade union to do so.
According to the Claimant, the case was referred to the Rivers State Controller of the Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity in Port Harcourt for intervention and after hearing from the parties, the Rivers State Controller of the Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity in Port Harcourt concluded that the Claimant is the rightful and competent trade union empowered to organize and unionise the workers of the 3rd Defendant.
It was the further contention of the NUPENG that, it wrote a letter on the 10th of June, 2016 addressed to the 3rd Defendant requesting for the commencement of union dues deductions in favour of the 1st Defendant because it has completed the unionization of the workers of the 3rd Defendant. That the Claimant is not the rightful or proper trade union legally empowered to unionise the junior workers of both the 2nd and 3rd Defendants who are separate and distinct corporate entities in different areas of business, trade or industry.
NUPENG therefore urged the court to dismiss the Claimant’s suit for lacking in merit and good faith.
After reviewing the argument of the parties, the Court Presided by Hon. Justice Polycarp I. Hamman expressed thus;
“I have carefully considered the processes, arguments and submissions as well as adumbrations of counsel for the parties, The jurisdictional scope of the 1st Defendant clearly relate to oil well and natural gas well operations including prospecting, drilling, crude oil and natural gas pipelines, refining, distribution and marketing of natural gas, extraction oil and natural gas and petroleum products including petrol filling stations, petroleum tanker drivers of which the 3rd Defendant is not engaged in any of such. I so find and hold.
I therefore find and hold on this issue that, since the right to freedom of association guaranteed in the 1999 Constitution (as amended) is not absolute, the junior workers of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants can only choose to join a trade union of their choices within a defined jurisdictional scope and cannot go outside the delineated jurisdictional scope. This issue therefore is resolved in favour of the Claimant.
In the final analysis, I am of the view that based on the reasons advanced above and the authorities cited and relied upon, the instant suit instituted by the claimant herein is meritorious and same succeeds.
