Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 334, June 2004

1. 640. The complaint is contained in communications dated 26 March and 28 April 2003 from the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU).
2. 641. The Government provided its observations in communications dated 20 August 2003 and 11 March 2004.
3. 642. Nigeria has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 643. In its communications of 26 March and 28 April 2003, the ASUU indicates that it is a workers’ organization duly registered in 1978 by the Registrar of Trade Unions, and an umbrella organization for 36 University lecturers’ unions. The President of the country is the University Visitor; he also appoints the Governing Council and the Chairman and the Vice-Chancellor of the University, which is supervised by the National Universities Commission and the Federal Minister of Education. According to the complainant, violations of freedom of association that occur in this context may therefore only happen at the pleasure of the Federal Government.
2. 644. The ASUU alleges that gross infringements of trade union rights in this case include the summary termination of appointment of staff because they had taken strike action, as well as harassment and victimization of trade union members.
3. 645. On 2 April 2001, after two years of warning, the ASUU launched a strike which was followed by all branches of the union nationwide. However, by 30 April, strikers at the University of Ilorin were prevented from entering the campus. During the night of 11-12 May 2001, the Secretariat of the union was broken into by the University authority, vandalized and sealed up. Union property was removed to an unknown destination, later discovered to be the storeyard of the University. The Secretariat of the union remained sealed at the time of filing the complaint.
4. 646. On 15 May 2001, five union officials involved in the strike action were unilaterally dismissed without due process. On 22 May 2001, 44 union members who remained on strike were also unilaterally dismissed. None of the dismissed staff were given a fair hearing as prescribed by national legislation, and a Court injunction forbidding the dismissal of academic staff was flagrantly violated. Two bailiffs who served related processes on the University were beaten up by University security. On 14 February 2002, six of the academic staff purportedly dismissed were brutally evicted from their living quarters.
5. 647. On 30 June 2001, the ASUU and the Government signed an agreement that included a clause forbidding the victimization of persons who had participated in the strike action leading to the agreement. However, the Government has to date refused to compel the University to redress the violations. On 6 September 2001 and 27 May 2002, following extensive investigation, an Implementation Committee set up by the Federal Government and comprising several prominent Nigerians directed the reinstatement of the dismissed staff, but the relevant authorities have refused to comply. On 4 December 2001, a Reconciliation Committee set up by the National Universities Commission made similar recommendations but the relevant authorities also refused to comply. Several Nigerian stakeholders, including the National Assembly and sundry organizations, have also appealed for the reinstatement of the staff and restoration of normal industrial relations, to no avail. All appeals to the Federal Government to date have failed and the Government has also conveyed its refusal to the ILO in writing.
6. 648. The ASUU’s allegations are supported by extensive documentary evidence. It requests the Committee to declare the above actions a violation of the trade union rights of the organization and of the individuals concerned, and to direct the authorities to redress these violations, in particular to reinstate the dismissed academic staff.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 649. In its communication of 20 August 2003, the Government states that, according to the agency responsible for higher education, the sequence of events in the two years preceding the dismissals does not lead to the conclusion that these persons were discharged because of their participation in the ASUU nationwide strike in 2001. What happened was that a group amongst the lecturers constituted themselves into a parallel administration and threatened to run the University down; the dismissed lecturers subverted the rules and regulations of the University; an attempt to restore discipline and uphold integrity of the University drew the ire of that group; there are several litigations pending about this matter.
2. 650. The University did not officially take part in the ASUU national strike from 2 April to 3 July 2001, because it was on break when the strike began. Five lecturers were dismissed on 15 May 2001 because they had physically engaged in combat with students while attempting to disrupt the second semester examinations; they were released in accordance with the University statute (section 15(3)(c)), Chapter 455 of 1990, and with the authorization of the University Governing Council.
3. 651. The 44 other lecturers were dismissed because they had stayed away from teaching and research duties for up to six months; in addition they refused to submit examination scripts which had long been concluded, as far back as November 2000, whereas the strike started on 2 April 2001. As their actions were considered to be a dereliction of duty and abdication of responsibilities, amounting to breach of employment, these 44 lecturers among others were warned in writing on 16 May 2001 to return to work, failing which they would be deemed to have voluntarily terminated their appointment. The University authorities deny all the allegations of harassment and victimization of the dismissed lecturers, who in fact perpetrated a regime of anarchy in the University before their exit, as they had declared war on the administration. The University has considered throughout the events that this was a disciplinary matter.
4. 652. Some of the affected lecturers were retired or relieved of their duties because of disciplinary action bordering on misconduct; others voluntarily terminated their appointments; others were contract employees who had served maximum service term after retirement; and others yet were on temporary appointments but failed to meet conditions for the regularization of their appointment.
5. 653. In that same communication of 20 August 2003, the Government mentions that the ASUU embarked on a strike on 29 December 2002 and did not call it off until 18 June 2003. Between 13 and 27 January 2003, seven meetings were held with the ASUU to resolve the points in dispute; another meeting was held on 10 March 2003. A Technical Committee, set up at another meeting on 23 March, met regularly for six weeks and recommended that the National Universities Commission should offer the dismissed lecturers places in other universities with the continuation of their services being assured. The Government immediately accepted this proposal but the ASUU rejected it. As all measures taken by the Government to solve the impasse proved unsuccessful, a trade dispute was declared on 9 May 2003, and was referred to the Industrial Arbitration Panel for adjudication.
6. 654. In its communication of 11 March 2004, the Government transmits the decision of the Panel, which concluded that, "... The University of Ilorin, given the circumstances of the strike action, is under no legal obligation to take back the striking lecturers whom it has successfully replaced with new recruits. The Tribunal welcomes the Government’s readiness to redeploy the concerned persons to other universities". The parties to the dispute, including the ASUU, still have the right to raise objections to the award, in which case the matter would be referred to the National Industrial Court.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 655. The Committee notes that this complaint concerns allegations of dismissals of trade union leaders and members in the context of national strike actions by the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) at the University of Ilorin in 2001, 2002 and 2003. The ASUU alleges that the 49 dismissals of academic staff are motivated by anti-union discrimination whereas the University authorities maintain that this was strictly a disciplinary matter.
2. 656. While noting this diverging appreciation of the events, the Committee observes from the report dated 27 May 2002 (Appendix 9 of the complaint) of the Implementation Committee that:
   • - the Implementation Committee had an opportunity to examine the evidence and documents of both sides on 6 September 2001 and concluded that the 44 lecturers were sacked expressly on account of the national strike and that the other five, who are union leaders, were sacked during the national strike (page 2 of report);
   • - the problem persisted as the interventions of the Implementation Committee and the Reconciliation Committee were unsuccessful (page 3);
   • - the letters of termination of the 44 lecturers unequivocally indicated that they were dismissed because they remained on the national strike (page 4);
   • - while the University of Ilorin alleged other acts of indiscipline against the dismissed staff, no evidence of these acts, or of the staff having been taken through due disciplinary process, was presented to the Committee (page 4);
   • - the crisis at the University remains a sore point, a potential source of destabilization in the University system (page 4);
   • - the Implementation Committee requested the University to reverse its action regarding the 44 lecturers, while discussions would be held in respect of the other categories of staff (pages 2 and 5).
3. 657. The Committee emphasizes that the Implementation Committee was a tripartite body set up at national level to implement the Agreement of 30 June 2001, whereby the parties clearly agreed that "... nobody shall be victimized in any way whatsoever for his/her role in the industrial action leading to this agreement" (Appendix 7 of the complaint). The Committee had the opportunity to consider facts, evidence and documents around the time of the events (almost three years ago now) and made recommendations with a view to maintaining harmonious labour relations in the University system. Also, the letter from the National Universities Commission to the University of Ilorin (Appendix 9 of the complaint) requests the latter to reverse the dismissal decision "... in order to ensure peace and harmony in the campuses in the country and in the spirit of the negotiations". Given the circumstances, the Committee considers that it would be inappropriate to attempt to anticipate the decision of the Implementation Committee, which it considers to be in accordance with sound bargaining and industrial relations practice.
4. 658. The Committee recalls that the right to strike is one of the essential means through which workers and their organizations may promote and defend their economic and social interests [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 475] that the dismissal of workers because of a strike, which is a legitimate trade union activity, constitutes serious discrimination in employment and is contrary to Convention No. 98 [see Digest, op. cit., para. 591] and that when trade unionists or union leaders are dismissed for having exercised the right to strike, the Committee can only conclude that they have been punished for their trade union activities and have been discriminated against [see Digest, op. cit., para. 592]. Noting that the issue may be referred to the National Industrial Court, the Committee urges the Government to draw immediately the attention of all social partners involved and of the competent labour institutions to the above considerations. The Committee firmly expects that the issue will be resolved by the labour institutions, including the National Industrial Court, into conformity with these principles of freedom of association. In view of the length of time elapsed since the events, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed rapidly of developments in this respect.
5. 659. The Committee notes that the Government has not replied to the allegations related to the closure of ASUU’s office and the seizure of union property. Recalling that the occupation or sealing of trade union premises should be subject to independent judicial review before being undertaken by the authorities in view of the significant risk that such measures may paralyse trade union activities [see Digest, op. cit., para. 183]. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that ASUU may recover its property and use its premises, and requests it to keep it informed of developments in this respect.