Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 340, Mars 2006

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

1. 145. During its examination of this case at its June 2005 meeting [see 337th Report, paras. 98-101], the Committee had noted that no information had been provided by the Government in respect of the complaint 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 expects the Government to ensure that the complaint is 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.
2. 146. In previous communications, to which the Committee had requested the Government to reply, the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) had provided additional information, according to which the award of the Industrial Arbitration Panel that handled the dispute between the Government and the ASUU concerning the dismissed lecturers was notified by the Federal Minister of Labour and Productivity on 31 March 2004 and, on the same day, a notice of objection was given by the ASUU to the Minister. Despite the fact that, as per section 13(1) of the Trade Disputes Act (Cap 432), 1990, if notice of objection to the award of an arbitration tribunal is given to the Minister, within the time and in the manner specified in the notice under section 12(2) of the Act, the Minister shall forthwith refer the dispute to the National Industrial Court, the Minister, in a letter dated 2 August 2004, indicated that the matter was being referred back to the Industrial Arbitration Panel for reconsideration. According to the complainant, this was contrary to section 12(3) of the Act according to which the Minister shall not exercise his powers under section 12(2) until the award has been reconsidered by the tribunal. In a communication dated 6 June 2003, the complainant indicated that the Minister of Labour and Productivity had not yet referred the case to the National Industrial Court.
3. 147. In a communication dated 22 June 2005, the complainant made additional allegations according to which, after having illegally dismissed 49 academics in the University of Ilorin, the Government had been trying to take away the right of the union to collective bargaining. More specifically, the complainant stated that on 30 June 2001 an agreement was signed between the federal Government and the ASUU which covered funding, conditions of service and university autonomy (copy attached to the ASUU communication). According to section 7.7(b), a comprehensive review of the agreement, including allowances, should be undertaken every three years. On 30 June 2004 the agreement of 2001 was due for a comprehensive review. Since July 2004, the ASUU had been making representations to the federal Government with a view to getting the Government to honour the agreement. The latest effort was a meeting between the Ministries of Labour and Productivity and Education, the National Universities Commission (NUC), the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and the ASUU on 3 March 2005. The outcome of that meeting was an agreement between the ASUU and the Government. According to point (2) of that agreement, by 3 May 2005, the Government would have constituted the negotiating team to review the 2001 agreement and communicate its decision to the ASUU. The Government however failed to fulfil this agreement according to the complainant.
4. 148. The complainant added that evidence from recent acts of the Government indicated that it was planning to take away the right of university workers to collective bargaining. The NUC, which was a participant in the 3 March 2005 agreement, organized a workshop between 31 May and 2 June 2005 for newly appointed chairpersons and members of the governing councils of federal universities, where each council was directed to negotiate the conditions of service with individual chapters of the ASUU in each federal university. This decision was aimed according to the complainant, at undermining and invalidating the renegotiation of the 2001 agreement which was negotiated centrally on behalf of all the branches of the union. On 18 June 2005, at the Convocation of the University of Abuja, the Federal Minister of Education announced that university workers should negotiate with their individual councils, ignoring the existence of the collective agreement of June 2001. At the same time, the federal Government sent a bill to the National Assembly the substance of which was to decentralize negotiations with university unions. According to the complainant, this bill, if passed into law, would not only violate the right to freedom of association but also outlaw the right of university workers to collective bargaining.
5. 149. In a communication dated 12 September 2005, the complainant indicated that on 26 July 2005, the Federal High Court in Ilorin rendered its judgement on the suit filed by five union officials and 44 rank and file members against the former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Ilorin with regard to their dismissal. The Court ordered that the defendants be reinstated in their posts in the University of Ilorin with all their rights, entitlements and other perquisites of their offices. The University was also ordered to pay the plaintiffs all their salaries and allowances from February 2001 until the day of the judgement and thenceforth (except for two, who were dead, whose salaries and allowances should cease on the date of death). However, according to the complainant, the University of Ilorin authorities, encouraged by the presidency, refused to comply with the judgement. They got the solicitors of the University to file an appeal without giving the University’s Governing Council an opportunity to examine the matter and decide whether to comply with the terms of the judgement, which were very clear. The complainant attached copies of the two judgements and a letter addressed by its lawyer to the Attorney-General of Nigeria, protesting against the presidency’s intervention in the matter, which according to the complainant, led the university authorities to refuse to comply with the order of the Federal High Court.
6. 150. The Committee notes with deep regret that the Government has not yet replied to its previous request, nor provided its observations on the additional information submitted by the ASUU. With regard to the dismissal of 49 academics/ASUU officials and members in the University of Ilorin, the Committee notes with interest the decision of the Ilorin Federal High Court which ordered that the dismissed workers be reinstated without loss of pay. The Committee also notes however, from the complainant’s allegations, that the university administration decided to file an appeal against this decision without bringing the matter for decision to the governing body of the University, pursuant to pressure exercised by the presidency to this effect. Recalling that the dismissals took place in May 2001 and that justice delayed is justice denied [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 105], the Committee requests the Government to intercede with the parties with a view to obtaining the execution of the judgement of the Federal High Court of Ilorin ordering the reinstatement of the 49 academics, while the appeal lodged by the university authorities is pending. The Committee requests to be kept informed in this respect.
7. 151. The Committee further notes that, according to new allegations made by the complainant, the Government refused to renegotiate the collective agreement of 2001, which was due for a comprehensive review on 30 June 2004, and even failed to implement an agreement reached on 3 March 2005 to constitute a negotiating team and communicate the relevant decision to the ASUU with a view to commencing negotiations. Moreover, the Government had been allegedly giving instructions to university authorities and governing councils, so as to negotiate with individual chapters of the ASUU in each university rather than centrally. Finally, the federal Government allegedly sent a bill to the National Assembly, the substance of which was to decentralize negotiations with university unions.
8. 152. Recalling that, according to the principle of free and voluntary collective bargaining embodied in Article 4 of Convention No. 98, the determination of the bargaining level is essentially a matter to be left to the discretion of the parties and, consequently, the level of negotiation should not be imposed by law, by decision of the administrative authority or by the case-law of the administrative labour authority [see Digest, op. cit., para. 851], the Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in respect of the new allegations made by the complainant and to communicate the text of any bill concerning collective bargaining with university unions.