Media
- Home
- Details
The Presiding Judge, Yenagoa Judicial Division of the National Industrial Court, Hon. Justice Polycarp Hamman has declared the reduction and deduction of the monthly salary of one Rita by Pyrammidt Company from N45k to N20k as unlawful.
The Court ordered the Company to pay Rita the sum of N225k, being the outstanding balance deducted from her salaries from August 2014 to April 2015, and further awarded the sum of N2m as general damages for the wrongful termination of her employment, to be paid within 30 days.
Justice Hamman held that, while Pyrammidt Company attempted to justify the reduction in Rita's salary on the ground that the contract invoice paid by her client was reduced, there was no evidence before the Court showing that Rita's salary was tied to the contract cost with the client.
From the facts, the Claimant, Rita, submitted that she was employed as a cleaner and was deployed to work with another company, where she earned a monthly salary of N45k.
Rita averred that Pyrammidt Company unilaterally reduced her salary from N45k to N20k in August 2014 without consultation or agreement, and continued paying her the reduced salary while withholding the balance of N25k monthly.
Rita further stated that Pyrammidt Company stopped paying her salary from January 2015 to April 2015, and although the arrears for that period were later paid at the reduced rate of N20k, the balance of N25k monthly remained unpaid, totalling N225k.
In defence, Pyrammidt Company maintained that the reduction in salaries was occasioned by a reduction in invoice payments from their client and was unanimously agreed upon by staff members, including Rita, at a meeting held in August 2014 that the defendant should reduce staff salaries instead of terminating their appointments, and the defendant also reduced the working days to two weeks on, two weeks off.
The Company further contended that Rita was not dismissed from employment but voluntarily stopped reporting to work after the salary reduction and was therefore not entitled to any further claims.
In opposition, Esisorigho’s counsel, O. P. Utobijohwo Esq, maintained that his client never consented to the reduction of her salary, and that the exhibit tendered is not a product of any meeting, and the same was merely fabricated because nowhere in the document did the staff pass a resolution that their salary should be slashed. The Court was urged to discountenance the exhibit and not accord any weight to the document.
Learned Counsel further argued that the defendant breached the conditions of his client’s employment because no notice was given before Rita's employment was terminated by the firm.
In a well-considered judgment, Hon. Justice Polycarp Hamman held that even though Rita Esisorigho did not produce a letter of employment, the evidence before the Court, including salary payments reflected in her bank statement and admissions by Pyrammidt Company, sufficiently established the existence of an employment relationship.
The Court held that the alleged minutes of the meeting tendered by Pyrammidt Company did not qualify as credible evidence of agreement by Rita to the salary reduction, as the document was unsigned by the workers, did not contain an attendance list, and did not specifically show her consent.
Justice Hamman held that the fact that Rita received the reduced salary for a period of time did not prevent her from approaching the Court to claim the outstanding balance deducted from her salary.
The Court held that Pyrammidt Company failed to properly terminate the employment of Rita by giving her the requisite notice or payment in lieu of notice, and while reinstatement could not be granted because the employment was one of master and servant, the wrongful acts of Pyrammidt Company entitled Rita to damages.
The Court reasoned that while the exhibit tendered by the firm displayed that the cost of the cleaning services rendered was reduced, there is however nothing in evidence to show that Rita’s salaries were tied to whatever contract cost negotiated and agreed upon by the defendant and her client; and If it was so, then it would have meant that any increase in the amount paid to the firm by her client would automatically lead to an increase in the salaries of the workers including the claimant.
Visit judgment portal for full details
