Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 343, Novembre 2006

Cas no 2267 (Nigéria) - Date de la plainte: 26-MARS -03 - Clos

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 152. At its November 2005 session, the Committee noted that it had not received any response in respect of the complaint in this case concerning the dismissal of 49 academic lecturers, including five trade union officials, for having exercised the right to strike, as far back as May 2001, and reiterated its previous recommendation that it firmly expected the Government to ensure that the complaint was resolved by the competent labour institutions, including the National Industrial Court, in conformity with freedom of association principles and to keep it informed rapidly of developments in this respect. The Committee further asked the Government to intercede with the parties with a view to obtaining the execution of the judgement of the Federal High Court of Lorin ordering the reinstatement of the 49 academics; comment on the new allegations made by the complainant to the effect that the Government had been trying to take away the right of the union to collective bargaining; and to communicate the text of any bill concerning collective bargaining with university unions [see 340th Report, paras. 145-152].
2. 153. In a communication dated 26 May 2006, the Government indicates that Nigeria is very conscious of its obligation to implement the provisions of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 and that it has in every aspect encouraged collective bargaining. Concerning the complaint that the objection of the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) to the Industrial Arbitration Panel’s (IAP) award was not referred to the National Industrial Court (NIC), the Government reports that the Minister wanted to ensure that justice was not subverted, even though the IAP award was in its favour and the Minister has only applied section 12(3) of the Trade Disputes Act (Cap 432), 1990 (discretionary authority to refer awards back to the IAP); the ASUU challenged the Minister’s decision in the Federal High Court which further stalled action; the High Court, on 7 May 2006, held that the Minister’s action was within the “ambit of the law”; and the Minister has subsequently referred the case to the IAP in accordance with section 12(3) of the Act.
3. 154. Concerning the complainant’s allegation about the Government’s directive to the effect that the Governing Councils of Federal Universities should negotiate conditions of service with individual chapters of ASUU, the Government states that the ASUU is registered as a trade union under the 1990 Trade Union Act, its Constitution describes its activities and mode of operation and the Government does not interfere. However, according to the Government, each Federal University is an autonomous entity with its Governing Council established under the law, and each university is therefore an employer by law that has the right to discuss labour issues with its employees or their representatives.
4. 155. As to the allegation that the Bill before the National Assembly aimed at decentralizing negotiations with university unions, the Government states that Nigeria is operating a democratic administration where individuals and corporate organizations are free to initiate bills before the National Assembly. According to the Government, the onus is on the ASUU to present its memorandum to the National Assembly on the matter.
5. 156. The Committee takes note of the decision rendered by the Federal High Court of Nigeria on 7 March 2006 to the effect that the Government’s decision not to refer the case to the NIC and to refer it back to the IAP was “within the tolerable ambit of the law”. The Committee asks the Government to inform it of the outcome of the procedure before the IAP.
6. 157. The Committee further notes the information provided by the Government to the effect that each Federal University is an autonomous entity with its Governing Council established under the law, and each university is therefore an employer by law that has the right to discuss labour issues with its employees or their representatives. The Committee also notes the Government’s comment concerning the possibility for the ASUU to present a memorandum to the National Assembly on the matter of the Bill allegedly aimed at decentralizing negotiations with university unions. The Committee recalls that adequate consultation should be held prior to the introduction of legislation through which the Government seeks to alter bargaining structures in which it acts actually or indirectly as employer [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 857]. The Committee reiterates its request that the Government communicates the text of any bill concerning collective bargaining with university unions. Concerning the allegation that the Government refuses to renegotiate the collective agreement even though this renegotiation was envisaged in the collective agreement, and failed to implement an agreement to constitute a negotiating team, the Committee expects that the Government respects all agreements reached with the ASUU and reiterates its request to the Government to provide it with comments.
7. 158. The Committee, noting that it has not received any information concerning its request that the Government intercede with the parties with a view to obtaining the execution of the judgement of the Federal High Court of Lorin ordering the reinstatement of the 49 academics, reiterates the importance it attaches to the principle that cases concerning anti-union discrimination be examined rapidly. An excessive delay in processing cases of anti-union discrimination, and in particular a lengthy delay in concluding the proceedings concerning the reinstatement of the trade union leaders dismissed by the enterprise, constitute a denial of justice and therefore a denial of the trade union rights of the persons concerned [see Digest, op. cit., para. 749]. The Committee requests once again to be kept informed of the execution of the judgement of the Federal High Court, as well as any further judgements rendered on appeal.