Judgment: Industrial Court Declares NASU As Proper Trade Union For SUBEB, Restrains Others From Collecting Dues

• 2674 Tuesday 9th October 2018

 

Yenagoa --His Lordship, Hon. Justice Bashar A. Alkali of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, sitting in Yenagoa on Tuesday 9^th October, 2018 in a landmark judgment declared that NON-ACADEMIC STAFF UNION OF EDUCATIONAL & ASSOCIATED INSTITUTIONS (NASU) (Claimant) are the Proper Trade Union Having Jurisdictional Scope over workers of the STATE UNIVERSAL BASIC EDUCATION BOARD RIVERS STATE (3^rd Defendant) that 3^rd and THE EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGEMENT OF STATE UNIVERSAL BASIC EDUCATION BOARD, RIVERS STATE (4^th)Defendants are to accord only the Claimant the recognition as such by the combined effects of section 40 & 45(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution, section 12 & Paragraph 8, First Schedule of the Trade Union (Amendment) Act, 2005 and section 5(3) and 9(6) of the Labour Act, 2004.

 

 

The Claimant sought against defendants among others: A DECLARATION that by the combined effects of Section 40 of the constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, Section 8 and 12 of Trade Unions Act 2004, S. 9(6) Labour Act 2004, the proper/right Trade Union to operate in the Rivers State Universal Basic Education Board is the Non-Academic Staff Union of Educational and Associated Institutions (NASU) and not the Nigeria Civil service Union (Rivers State Council). A DECLARATION that consequent upon relief (i) above, the recognition accorded the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants by the 3^rd and 4^th Defendant – State Universal Basic Education Board, Rivers State, the Executive Chairman and Management of State Universal Basic Board, Rivers State is illegal and violates “S.8 of the Trade Union Act, 2004:

 

Likewise, A DECLARATION that consequent upon reliefs (i and ii) above, the 2^nd Defendant is to render account of all check-off dues illegally paid to him by the 4^th Defendant and remit same to the Claimant.

 

The brief fact of the case is that the Claimant is a Trade Union and first registered on August 15, 1978 with registration No.63 under Trade Union (Amendment) Decree No. 22 of 1978 with its headquarters at Ibadan, Oyo State, with State Council offices across the States of the Federation and a liaison office at Abuja.

 

The Claimant avers that its membership is made up of non-academic staff employees in public and privately owned educational, research and associated institutions regardless of status or salary grade levels. That a misunderstanding/misinterpretation during the administration of Olusegun Obasanjo led to the break-up of its members resulting to some members joining the “Civil Service”. These breakaways later came back to cause problems in the State Universal Basic Education Board, Rivers State (the 3^rd Defendant).

 

Also that the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants have been collecting half of the check-off dues from workers because the 3^rd and 4^th Defendants accorded them recognition. The Claimant also state that it has been making frantic efforts to persuade the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants to leave the 3^rd Defendant to no avail.

 

The Claimant, in its Written Address, raised many issues for determination Whether the purport of section 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, Sections 8 and 12 of the Trade Union Act, 2004 and Section 9(6) of the Labour Act, 2004; is that a Trade Union can unionize workers in any trade group outside the trade group which that particular union belongs to and whether a union can opt out of a trade union as a group or it is an individual member who can do so. Whether the recognition and consequent payment of half of the check-off dues to the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants by the 3^rd and 4^th Defendants is lawful and in accordance with Trade Union Act and Labour Law

 

In his argument in support of his claims, the Claimant’s Counsel submitted that it is without doubt that by a community reading of the provisions of sections 40 of the constitution, 12 of the Trade Union Act and 9(6) of the Labour Act, workers have the freedom to associate with any trade union of their choice. He contends however that such freedom was not absolute as section 8 of the Trade Union Act limits the freedom of a worker’s membership of a trade union to a trade union that normally engages in the trade or industry in which such worker is engaged.

 

The 1^st and 2^nd Defendants in their Counter Affidavit stated that that the 1^st Defendant is one of the 29 registered Trade Unions affiliated to the Nigeria Labour Congress and it is authorized to unionize workers by law. He further stated that it was the individual workers of the 3^rd Defendant who voluntarily applied to become members of the 1^st Defendant union and that in the past, the Head of Service had confirmed that a civil servant is free to join any trade union of his choice. He therefore urged the court to dismiss the suit.

Learned Counsel on behalf of the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants questioned for determination among others Whether the membership of a trade union is not voluntary.

 

After reviewing the argument of both parties, the Court Presided by Hon. Justice B. A. Alkali expressed thus;

“It is common knowledge that the Federal Military Government had, because of the proliferation of trade unions with divergent aspirations and objectives, regrouped and reorganized trade unions in Nigeria reducing their number to 71 (currently they are 29) from a stunning 800 and upon which the Trade Union (Amendment) Decree was promulgated in 1978. These Trade Unions and their jurisdictional scopes are still relevant.

 

“By that exercise, the Nigerian Government brought order and sanity to the trade union movement of this country and I do not think it will be in the interest either of the unions or the country at large to re-introduce a free for all in the Trade Union Movement using the provisions of Section 40 of the constitution or section 12(4) of the Trade Union (Amendment) Act as a shield.

 

“It is my candid view that since there already exists a trade union to represent the interests of workers of the 3^rd Defendant there was no need for the recognition of the 1^st Defendant by the 4^th Defendant within its institution. Exhibit NCSU 3 is only an advisement from the Head of Service and the Ministry of Justice and are not binding on this Court. The Head of Service had also suggested that aggrieved persons may take up the matter in a Court of law and I believe that is what the Claimant has done.

 

In conclusion, His Lordship declared that the Claimant are the proper trade union having jurisdictional scope over workers of the 3^rd Defendant not the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants and the 3^rd and 4^th Defendants are to accord only the Claimant the recognition as such by the combined effects of section 40 & 45(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution, section 12 & Paragraph 8, First Schedule of the Trade Union (Amendment) Act, 2005 and section 5(3) and 9(6) of the Labour Act, 2004.

 

The court further restrained The 4^th Defendant or any other agency or department so responsible with the duty of deducting and paying the check-off dues from further paying half of the check-off dues or any check-off dues to the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants on behalf of the workers of the 3^rd Defendant.

 

Payment of the full check-off dues are to be made henceforth only to the Claimant trade union being the proper and legal trade union having jurisdictional scope over workers of the 3^rd Defendant.

  

For Full Judgment, Click Here

Share Via WhatsApp