Abuja---His Lordship, Hon. Justice Benedict Kanyip of the National Industrial Court sitting in Abuja has upheld the preliminary objection raised by National Union of Air Transport Employees and dismissed the case filed by National Union of Hotels and Personal Services Workers for being incompetent.
The court held that the instant dispute between the National Union of Hotels and Personal Services Workers and the National Union of Air Transport Employees over who can unionise the workers of the Newrest ASL Nigeria Plc is a trade dispute that ought to exhaust the dispute resolution processes of Part I of the Trade Dispute Act before the appellate jurisdiction of the Court can be activated.
The claimant took up an originating summons against the defendants sought for determination whether by virtue of the provisions of the Third Schedule PART B of the Trade Unions Act Cap T14Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) 2004, the 1st defendant can lawfully organize and unionise the members of the claimant who are staff in the 2nd defendant company that engages in the business of catering services, hotels and restaurant proprietors among others.
Upon determination, the claimant prayed among others for A declaration that workers and employees in the 2nd defendant (Newrest ASL Nigeria Plc) fall within the jurisdictional scope of the claimant (National Union of Hotels and Personal Services Workers) as stipulated in the Third Schedule Part B No.12 of the Trade Unions Act Cap T14 Laws of Federation of Nigeria(LFN) 2004 and not the 1st defendant (National Union of Air Transport Employees) as stipulated in the Third Schedule Part B No.6 of the Trade Unions Act Cap T14 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) 2004.
In reaction, counsel to National Union of Air Transport Employees -1st defendant Egang Agabi Esq filed a preliminary objection supported by an affidavit and a written address urging that the suit be dismissed or the name of the 1st defendant -be struck out on the grounds that the Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the claimant, that the suit as presently constituted is frivolous, vexatious and abuse of court process.
The 1st defendant submitted that the act of the claimant and Newrest ASL Nigeria Plc -2nd defendant instituting multiplicity of suits against the 1st defendant both at the Court of Appeal and the instant case where the claimant is seeking for reliefs that have been determined by this Court already sitting in Lagos amounts to an abuse of court process.
2nd defendant submitted that the 1st defendant’s assertions on multiplicity of cases are misconceived and misplaced that the instant suit is timely, urging the Court to effectively and effectually determine the issues in dispute in the overall interest of the business of the 2nd defendant who is currently at the mercy of the claimant and the 1st defendant.
On court COURT SUO MOTU, the claimant and the 2nd defendant submitted that the issue of jurisdictional scope of a trade union is of law which can only be determined by a competent court and, therefore, there is no need for the dispute to be submitted to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Arbitration Panel lAP, that the questions for resolution do not fall within the jurisdiction of the TDA.
In opposition, 1st defendant expressed that it is upon the exhaustion of the procedure for dispute resolution as prescribed in the Trade Dispute Act that the aggrieved party may approach the NIC.
Delivering the judgment, the presiding Judge, Justice Kanyip held that the instant dispute between especially the claimant and the 1st defendant over who can unionize the workers of the 2nd defendant is a trade dispute that ought to exhaust the dispute resolution processes of Part I of the Trade Dispute Act before the appellate jurisdiction of this Court can be activated.
“Incidentally, by paragraphs 12 to 14 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons, the dispute resolution processes of Part I of the TDA have actually been activated by the 1st defendant and the Federal Ministry of Labour had intervened in terms of its power to mediate and conciliate.
“I am of the firm view that parties ought to have allowed that process to be exhausted before rushing to this Court as the claimant did. For all the reasons I have given, placing reliance on especially section 254C(3) of the 1999 Constitution, which does not preclude the NIC from entertaining and exercising appellate and supervisory jurisdiction over an arbitral tribunal in respect of any matter that the NIC has jurisdiction to entertain or any matter as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly, and the finding that the instant dispute is actually a trade dispute, I hold that the claimant is prematurely before this Court in this suit. The instant suit is accordingly incompetent. I so find and hold.”
In all, the court upheld merit of the preliminary objection of the 1st defendant and dismissed the suit.
