The continued dispute between the Nigeria Union of Petroleum and Pure Gasoline Employees (NUPENG) and Dangote Petroleum Refinery has drawn various authorized opinions from attorneys throughout Nigeria concerning the legality and limits of firm staff becoming a member of a union.
Some argue that worker contract phrases forbidding unionism needs to be revered by staff and third-party organizations.
Others consider that the 1999 Constitutional provision on freedom of affiliation is binding on all individuals and firms.
On this unique interview with BusinessTimes, outstanding attorneys and specialists shared their views on the legality of unionism whereas providing suggestions.
What Nigerian Attorneys Are Saying
In an interview with BusinessTimes, Barrister Frank Tietie, an Abuja-based human rights activist and improvement advocate, said that though there may be freedom of affiliation within the 1999 Structure and Dangote Refinery can’t say its staff can’t type a union; if a part of the situations of employment is that the refinery wouldn’t acknowledge a union, anybody who accepts these situations can’t later demand union recognition.
“The identical freedom to affiliate offers the liberty to not affiliate. So, the underside line is that unionism just isn’t by pressure,” he mentioned.
- He added that if the phrases and situations of employment at Dangote Refinery are unacceptable to anybody, such individuals ought to resign fairly than insist on staying and forming a union opposite to their employment settlement.
- He expressed the view that sure industries in Nigeria don’t allow union members to hold out industrial motion, as an illustration.
- He confused that there have at all times been alleged violations of commerce union regulation, particularly by commerce unions in Nigeria, allegedly to the detriment of business concord and financial stability.
He highlighted that sure commerce unions, equivalent to NUPENG, can’t impose themselves on a non-public institution like Dangote Refinery, which offers important providers to the general public.
“Based mostly on the provisions of the Commerce Union Act as amended in 2005 and the Commerce Dispute Act, along with all different acts that make provision for important providers, sure industries are excluded from the politics of commerce unionism.
“By provisions of the Commerce Union Act, significantly sections 6 and 31 (which cope with important providers), which outlaw sure illegalities underneath commerce unionism; Dangote Refinery has each proper to not acknowledge union actions that will hamper its provision of important providers to the Nigerian public,” he mentioned.
On his half, Barrister Joseph Chinedu maintained that it could be “outrightly unlawful” for NUPENG to dam non-union staff like Dangote truckers from loading and distributing gasoline.
- He added that if Dangote Refinery, as NUPENG alleges, is stopping truck drivers from becoming a member of the union, the event additionally violates Part 40 of the 1999 Structure and the Commerce Unions Act.
“The regulation is evident. Employees have a proper to unionize or to stay non-union members. Employers can’t coerce staff concerning union membership, and Commerce Unions or NUPENG can’t cease non-union members from working,” he informed BusinessTimes.
Senior Advocate of Nigeria George Ibrahim informed BusinessTimes that freedom of affiliation is assured by Part 40 of the 1999 Structure.
“Each Nigerian has the appropriate to freely be part of any affiliation of their alternative. You don’t pressure it on anyone,” he mentioned.
- He highlighted that it could be problematic for NUPENG to attempt to pressure Dangote drivers to hitch its affiliation, as Dangote is the employer of these drivers.
“The phrases of employment the drivers entered with Dangote Refinery stay unchanged( as none has deviated) they usually haven’t complained,” he said.
- Citing NUPENG’s alleged modus operandi, the senior lawyer mentioned as soon as somebody turns into a member, NUPENG will affix a seal on any truck loading petroleum merchandise, opposite to constitutional provisions, as if the truck belongs to them.
“That in itself is illegitimate. You’ll be able to’t pressure individuals to hitch you. NUPENG just isn’t the proprietor of the Dangote vans,” he mentioned.
He added that if Dangote truck drivers don’t need to be members of NUPENG, they’ve such constitutional rights.
- Nevertheless, he famous that any clause in an organization’s phrases of employment barring staff from unionism can be opposite to greatest practices and worldwide labor group legal guidelines.
In an unique chat with BusinessTimes, Chief Otunba Tunde Falola Esq, an Abuja-based authorized practitioner, highlighted the relevant legal guidelines within the NUPENG and Dangote Refinery dispute:
“1999 Structure of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). Part 40 ensures the appropriate to freedom of affiliation, together with commerce union membership.
“ Part 17(3)(a) directs the State to make sure alternatives for all residents to safe sufficient livelihood, together with honest labor practices.
“ Commerce Unions Act, Cap T14, LFN 2004, acknowledges registered commerce unions equivalent to NUPENG and protects their actions.
“By advantage of Part 9(6)(a) of the Labour Act, no contract shall make it a situation of employment {that a} employee shall or shall not be part of a commerce union or relinquish membership of a commerce union. Part 9(6)(b) protects staff from victimization for belonging to a union.
“Federal Competitors and Client Safety Act (FCCPA) 2019 prohibits restrictive commerce practices and monopolistic behaviour, empowering the FCCPC to analyze and sanction violations.”
The lawyer added that the Nationwide Industrial Courtroom of Nigeria (NICN) has persistently upheld staff’ rights to unionize and take part in commerce union actions.
- He argued that if Dangote Refinery directed drivers to take away NUPENG stickers or tried to implement loading in defiance of agreed protocols, as alleged, such actions might quantity to union-busting and contravene Part 40 of the Structure and Part 9(6) of the Labour Act.
- He defined that whereas NUPENG’s choice to position members on pink alert seems lawful inside constitutional rights, it shouldn’t escalate into illegal strike motion with out due discover as supplied by related legal guidelines.
- The lawyer said that the presence of federal ministers and DSS officers through the earlier decision strengthens the union’s case that there was a binding industrial settlement which the employer should honour.
- He argued that except NUPENG or different stakeholders can show anti-competitive practices, the size of Dangote’s operations doesn’t quantity to a monopoly underneath Nigerian regulation.
He added, nevertheless, that the FCCPC may have to watch compliance to forestall market dominance abuses.
He warned that if allegations of anti-unionism are true, Dangote Refinery dangers legal responsibility for infringing staff’ constitutional and statutory rights to freedom of affiliation, unionism, and honest labor practices.
He added that monopoly claims towards Dangote Refinery are presently unsupported by regulation, because the FCCPC acknowledges a number of licenses and gamers within the downstream oil sector.
“Employees needs to be allowed to train union rights with out harassment or intimidation, according to constitutional ensures,” he mentioned.
On his half, Chris Ekemezie, a Nigerian lawyer based mostly in Canada, mentioned labor regulation is practiced all over the place in Nigeria, including that the federal civil service and the states are all unionized.
- He said that it’s flawed, anti-democratic, and towards the regulation for a person or establishment to limit or refuse its workers from being members of a union.
- He defined that unionism is practiced worldwide and is entrenched in Nigerian legal guidelines.
“The economic courts have been created based mostly on union agitations. It’s a strain group the place staff unite for a typical objective — to advocate for his or her pursuits in order that employers don’t cheat them,” he added.
Backstory
In a press assertion on Saturday, Dangote Refinery emphasised that it’s not against unionism and acknowledges staff’ rights to unionize.
The Group added that it respects the rights of all staff to both be part of or not be part of a union, according to the ideas of voluntarism.
“Whereas we’re obliged to guard the rights of staff who select to hitch or not be part of any union, we’re additionally obliged to guard the rights of these staff who, for any cause, resolve to not be part of,” the assertion partly reads.
- The Refinery highlighted that it respects the rights of all its staff to a secure, peaceable, and safe atmosphere, free from threats to their private well-being and supply of revenue.
- The Refinery urged the unions to respect these ideas for peaceable industrial relations within the oil and gasoline business.
BusinessTimes beforehand reported that NUPENG not too long ago alleged that, days after agreeing to droop its nationwide strike, Dangote Refinery drivers have been instructed to take away union stickers from their vans and have been pressured to load the power, violating agreed protocols.
- The union mentioned the incident got here after a decision on staff’ rights was signed within the presence of three federal ministers and the Deputy Director Common of the Division of State Providers (DSS).
- The union additionally claimed that Dangote Group official Alhaji Sayyu Aliu Dantata flew over the location by helicopter and summoned the Navy, allegedly to intimidate union officers.
In response, NUPENG positioned members on pink alert and known as on the Federal Authorities, civil society, and worldwide labor teams to safeguard staff’ rights.
Dangote Petroleum Refinery rejected claims of being monopolistic, saying over 30 refinery licenses have been issued to different non-public gamers, with lively developments by BUA, Aradel, and Walter Smith.
Be First to Comment