Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

EMPLOYER MAY WAVE “NO WORK NO PAY” DURING A STRIKE ACTION

Dictum

Senior Staff Association of Nigerian Universities (SSANU) v. Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) unreported Suit No. NIC/8/2004, as well as Oyo State Government v. Alhaji Bashir Apapa & ors [2008] 11 NLLR (Pt. 29) 284 are quite emphatic that it is perfectly lawful for an employer to choose to dispense with the ‘no work, no pay’ rule. In other words, payment of wages or salaries for the period of a strike action is lawful if an employer chooses to pay same and not to penalize the strikers in any other way for the strike. In the same vein, it is lawful for workers to agree with their employer that wages will be paid and no other detriment suffered even when strike actions are embarked on. The bottom line is that an agreement between an employer and strikers to pay wages or salaries for the period of a strike action is legal as the agreement acquires a life of its own, and section 43(1)(a) of the TDA cannot be called to use in such a case.

— B.B. Kanyip, J. FG v. ASUU (2023) – NICN/ABJ/270/2022

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

DESPITE NO PROCESS FROM DEFENDANT, CLAIMANT MUST STILL SATISFY THE COURT BEFORE HE CAN SUCCEED

But the fact that the defendants did not file any defence process does not absolve the claimant from proving its case to the satisfaction of this Court. In Attorney General Osun State v. NLC & ors [2013] 34 NLLR (Pt. 99) 278 NIC, given a similar scenario, this is what this Court said: The defendants at first did not enter any memorandum of appearance, or show up, or were represented by counsel, or file any defence process in this matter; and this was despite the service of the respective hearing notices on them. Order 9 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 enjoins a party served with a complaint and the accompanying originating processes and who intends to defend the action to file defence processes as provided therein. Order 9, therefore, recognizes the right of a defendant not to defend an action filed against him/her. And by Order 19 Rule 2, where the defendant is absent at the trial and no good cause is shown for the absence, the claimant may prove the claim in so far as the burden of proof lies upon him or her. This Rule, of course, accords with the minimal evidential requirement, which is to the effect that a plaintiff cannot assume that he is entitled to automatic judgment just because the other party did not adduce evidence before the trial court as held in Mr. Lawrence Azenabor v. Bayero University, Kano [2011] 25 NLLR (Pt. 70) 45 CA at 69 and Ogunyade v. Oshunkeye [2007] 4 NWLR (Pt. 1057) 218 SC at 247… See also The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited v. The Minister of Petroleum Resources & 2 ors unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/178/2022, then judgment of which was delivered on 28 July 2022. — B.B. Kanyip, J. FG v. ASUU (2023) – NICN/ABJ/270/2022

And I must stress here, the legality or validity of a strike or industrial action is determined on a case by case basis. It is not carried over to another. — B.B. Kanyip, J. FG v. ASUU (2023) – NICN/ABJ/270/2022

Was this dictum helpful?