Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 358, November 2010

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

1. 79. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns the dismissal of 49 academic lecturers, including five trade union officials, for having exercised the right to strike, at its November 2006 meeting. With respect to the objection of the complainant, the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), the Industrial Arbitration Panel’s (IAP) award was not referred to the National Industrial Court (NIC), the Committee took note of the decision rendered by the Federal High Court of Nigeria on 7 March 2006, to the effect that the Government’s decision not to refer the case to the NIC and to refer it back to the IAP was “within the tolerable ambit of the law”, and requested to be kept informed of the outcome of the procedure before the IAP. The Committee further reiterated its request that the Government communicate the text of any bill concerning collective bargaining with university unions, and requested the Government to comment on the complainant’s allegation that the Government refused to renegotiate the collective agreement and failed to implement an agreement to constitute a negotiating team. Finally, the Committee, noting that it had not received any information concerning its request that the Government 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, requested to be kept informed of the execution of the Federal High Court’s judgement as well as any further judgements rendered on appeal [see 343rd Report, paras 152–158].
2. 80. In its communication of 7 April 2010, the complainant states that on 12 July 2006 the Court of Appeal reversed the 2005 judgement of the Federal High Court of Ilorin ordering the reinstatement of the 49 academics. The Court of Appeal’s decision was appealed to the Supreme Court which, in its judgement of 11 December 2009, set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal. With respect to collective negotiations with the Government, the complainant indicates that the Government set up a negotiating committee in December 2006 and negotiations began in January 2007. The complainant withdrew from negotiations on 11 January 2008, when it became clear that the Government was not serious about the deliberations, and embarked on industrial action; negotiations resumed on 25 August 2008 and ended in January 2009. The complainant states that at the negotiations’ conclusion, the Government, instead of signing the agreement, attempted to repudiate the agreement reached and impose decentralized re-negotiations. The complainant subsequently engaged in a four-month strike, and an agreement was reached on 21 October 2009.
3. 81. The Committee notes the information provided by the complainant. It regrets that the Government provides no information respecting the execution of the 2005 judgement of the Federal High Court of Ilorin ordering the reinstatement of the 49 academics, who were dismissed in 2001. Noting further that the Federal High Court’s judgement was affirmed by the Supreme Court in December 2009, the Committee once again reiterates the importance it attaches to the principle that cases concerning anti-union discrimination be examined rapidly. An excessive delay in processing cases of anti-union discrimination, and in particular a lengthy delay in concluding the proceedings concerning the reinstatement of the trade union leaders dismissed by the enterprise, constitute a denial of justice and therefore a denial of the trade union rights of the persons concerned [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth edition, 2006, para. 826]. It once again urges the Government to intercede with the parties with a view to obtaining the execution of the judgement and the rapid reinstatement of the 49 academics. It requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this regard.
4. 82. As concerns collective negotiations, the Committee notes that the complainant had concluded a collective agreement with the Government on 21 October 2009. Finally, the Committee once again requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of the procedure before the IAP, as well as to communicate the text of any bill concerning collective bargaining with university unions.