*Says NIC ignored section 3 (2) of the Trade Union Act
Femi Falana, a prominent Constitutional Lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), has raised objections to the recent judgement of the National Industrial Court, which granted official recognition to the Congress of Nigerian University Academics (CONUA) and National Association of Medical and Dental Academics (NAMDA) as trade unions.
Citing various Supreme Court rulings, Falana argued that the Apex court had previously emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 3(2) of the Trade Unions Act.
According to this section, the Registrar of Trade Unions must refuse the registration of a trade union if there already exists another union catering to the same interests as the one applying for registration.
In response to the judgement, Falana contended that the Supreme Court had previously upheld the constitutionality of Section 3(2) of the Trade Unions Act.
As counsel to the claimant, the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), he criticized the Industrial Court for seemingly disregarding the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Osawe & Ors v Registrar of Trade Unions [1985] 4 NWLR (Pt.4) 755.
In that case, the Supreme Court had held that the right of association guaranteed by Section 37 of the 1979 Constitution, like other rights in Chapter IV of the Constitution, was not an absolute right and could be limited in accordance with Section 41 of the same Constitution (now Section 45 of the 1999 Constitution).
Falana further explained that the Trade Unions Act 1978 was enacted to maintain public order and prevent the chaotic proliferation of trade unions that prevailed before the law’s enactment. It aimed to establish a sense of order in the trade union landscape.
The disagreement over the judgement highlights the complexities of trade union recognition and the ongoing efforts to strike a balance between the right of association and maintaining order within the trade union sector.
“For the avoidance of doubt, the Supreme Court held that by section 3(2) of the Trade Unions Act, it was mandatory for the Registrar of Trade Unions to refuse registration of a trade union once there is in existence a trade union that caters for the same interest as the one applying for registration.
“The NIC ignored the case of Registered Trustees of National Association of Community Health Practitioners (RT, NACHPN) & Ors v Medical and Health Workers Union of Nigeria (MHWUN) & Ors [2008] LPELR-3196 (SC); [2008] 2 NWLR (Pt.1072) 575, where the Supreme Court affirmed its decision in the case of Osawe v Registrar of Trade Unions (supra) and came to the same conclusion.
“The Justices unanimously held that Section 3(2) of the Trade Unions Act makes it mandatory for the Registrar of Trade Unions, on receiving an application to register any trade union, to ensure that there is no any other registered trade union in existence which caters for the same interest as the one applying for registration,” Falana said.
Recall that the Industrial court, in its judgment delivered by Justice Benedict Kanyip held that in line with the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Act, there can be more than one trade union within an employment.
The judge in addition stated that contrary to the claimant’s submission that Section 3 (2) of Trade Union Act made the first and second defendants incompetent to register CONUA and NAMDA to coexist and carry out the same functions in the universities as ASUU.
Kanyip said that the Section does not encourage the monopoly of trade unions, but rather the section encourages the existence of other trade unions.
The court said “The reliefs prayed by the claimant failed, refused and I so hold. I make no order as to cost”
The claimant’s counsel, Mr Femi Falana SAN, submitted two questions for determination.
Part of the question was whether by Section 4 (2) of the constitution of Nigeria 1999 as amended and Section 3 (2) of TUA, the second defendant can register CONUA and NAMDA to carry out the same functions covering the same jurisdiction sphere as the claimant.
The counsel further averred that the second and third defendants registered the third and fourth defendants in a bid to split ASUU.
The first and second defendants in reply submitted that the court should determine whether the issues raised by the claimant were not speculative and academic.
The third defendant on its part raised three issues that bordered on whether the claimant put before the court any proof, whether the claimant’s suit was not liable to be dismissed, and whether the third and fourth defendants were not legally registered.
The fourth defendant submitted for the determination of the court whether there was any violation in the registration of the two unions.
According to the court, the claimant gave evidence of this assertion from an online publication titled, “FG registers 2 new university unions in a bid to split ASUU”.
Although the fourth defendant objected to the admissibility of the publication in evidence, stating that the publication was a hearsay evidence, the court however dismissed the objection and allowed the admissibility as Exhibit 1.
The court also held that the fourth defendant was not registered as a trade union until Jan.11, collected the certificate of registration on Jan. 13, and formally completed all processes to be registered as a trade union on Jan.17, 2023.
The court therefore ruled that as of June 26, 2022, when the claimant filed the suit, the fourth defendant was not in existence.
