Tuesday, 5 April 2016

NLLR DISCOUNT PROMO!

NLLR DISCOUNT PROMO!
Enjoy 20% discount on every purchase of Nigerian Labour Law Reports (NLLR)
from 11th April to 10th May, 2016.
Subscribe/obtain your set or part thereof today. Part 1- Part 237 @N1600 only per Part.
(Volumes of Complete Index also Available)
Contact:
Debbie - 07038436051
Bunmi - 08026119096
Olawale - 07035675155.
Or lawpublishers@rochebalaw.com
BE ON TOP OF YOUR LABOUR CASES WITH NLLR.
Enobong Etteh,
Publisher/Editor-in-Chief,
Rocheba Law Publishers.

Tuesday, 29 March 2016

On When Payment of salary in lieu of notice will be ordered by court

-

      Where an employee’s appointment has been terminated without the required notice as contained in the terms of employment, the court has the power to order payment of salary in lieu of notice. In the instant case, because the claimant’s employment was terminated without notice as agreed in the letter of employment, he is entitled to one month’s salary in lieu of notice. (P. 733, Paras. A-B)

Wednesday, 16 March 2016

On Whether contract of employment is subject to statutory enactments and common law rules

      A contract of employment between a master and a servant may be subject to either statutory or common law rules. However whether the contract has a statutory flavour or not before an employee is sacked, he must be given a fair hearing as enshrined in section 33 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979 (this is im pari materia with section 36 of the 1999 Constitution). In the instant case, there was no evidence that he claimant was not given fair hearing when it was being decided that his right to continue in his employment was to be taken from him by dismissal for being found liable of the allegations of fraud and conversion. [Afribank Nig. Plc. v. Osisanya [2000] NWLR (Pt. 642) 598 @ PP.613-614 para. E – A referred to.]  (P. 729, Paras. E-H, P. 730, Paras. B)

Monday, 8 February 2016

On Whether an employer can determine the employment of an employee without a valid reason





On Whether an employer can determine the employment of an employee without a valid reason -  (Duru v. Skye Bank Plc   [2015]  59 N.L.L.R (Pt. 207) 680)




  The termination of Employment Convention, 1982 (No. 158) and Recommendation No. 166 regulate termination of employment at the initiative of the employer. Article 4 of this Convention requires that the employment of an employee shall not  be terminated unless there is a  valid reason for such termination connected with his capacity or conduct or based on the operational requirements of the undertaking, establishment or  service. The Committee of Experts has frequently recalled in its comments that; the need to base termination of employment on a valid reason is the cornerstone of the Convention’s provisions. This is the global position on employment relationship now. It is the current International Labour Standard and International Best Practice. Although this Convention is not ratified by Nigeria,  since March 4, 2011 when the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Third Alteration) Act, 2010 came into effect, this International Best Practice and International Labour Standard to matters like this by virtue of section 254C(1)(f) and (h) of this Constitution as amended. In other words, by the provisions of section 254C (1) (f) and (h) of the Constitution as amended, the National Industrial Court can now move away from the harsh and rigid Common Law posture of allowing employer to dismiss its employee for bad or no reason at all. (Pp. 724-725, Paras. D-B)
Per KOLA-OLALERE, J. (Pp. 725-726, Paras. B-A)
“Consequently, I find that it is too harsh for the defendant to inflict so much pain and loss on the claimant by dismissing him without any reason; more so, that the current International Labour Standard and International Best Practice is that an employer terminating or dismissing the employment of its employee is to do so with valid reason. I, therefore, hold that it is wrong for the defendant to dismiss the claimant without any reason in this instance.
Furthermore, even though no reason is stated in Document C7, the letter of dismissal for the claimant’s dismissal; I find from the total evidence before me that he basis for the defendant’s action is its allegation of fraud and negligence against the claimant in opening the Operational Account for the Rivers State Board of Internal Revenue with the defendant as a result of which the sum of N444m was illegally withdrawn from the Account. See also Document C6 (Internal Memo through which the claimant was suspended indefinitely without pay on the incidence of Conversion and Fraudulent Withdrawal of 444 million Naira Fund of Rivers State Board of Internal Revenue) and Document C9 ( the internet Publication that the claimant was dismissed following his role in a Conversion and Fraudulent Withdrawal on a State’s Board of Internal Revenue Account in his Region). See further paragraphs 5,7, and 15 of the Statement of Defence and counsel’s argument in paragraphs 4.9 to 4.18 of the defendant’s final written address. Therefore, since both parties argued this issue extensively, the Court will consider whether or not the claimant's dismissal on this basis is justified.”


To subscribe for your copies of the Nigerian Labour Law Reports (NLLR) contact:
1
                      1.      Debbie Abu (Assistant Managing Editor/Business Development Manager) – 07038436051
2.     Olubunmi Sogbade (Head, Admin) – 08069492058, 08026119096.
3.     Olawale Okono (Marketing Manager) -08035675155
OR
 Email: lawpublishers@rochebalaw.com; info.rochebalawpublishers@gmail.com; debbie.abu@rochebalaw.com. 
Visit our website on www.labourlawreports.com


Monday, 18 January 2016

On Whether the National Industrial Court has jurisdiction over claim of an employer for destruction of his property by an employee -



Dungus & Ors. v.  ENL Consortium Ltd.  [2015]  60 N.L.L.R (Pt. 209) 39

On Whether  the National Industrial Court has jurisdiction over claim of an employer for destruction of his property by an employee -
        The National Industrial Court under section 245(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, is given jurisdiction over all labour, employment, trade union, industrial relations, etc. causes and matters, and matters incidental thereto. In the instant case, the counterclaim of the defendant is a claim by an employer against its employees for the destruction of the employer’s goods, machines, plants and equipments while at work. This comes squarely within the jurisdiction of this Court under section 254C(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended. (P. 90, Paras. B-D)

To subscribe for your copies of the Nigerian Labour Law Reports (NLLR) contact:
1
                      1.      Debbie Abu (Assistant Managing Editor/Business Development Manager) – 07038436051
2.     Olubunmi Sogbade (Head, Admin) – 08069492058, 08026119096.
3.     Olawale Okono (Marketing Manager) -08035675155
OR
 Email: lawpublishers@rochebalaw.com; info.rochebalawpublishers@gmail.com; debbie.abu@rochebalaw.com. 
Visit our website on www.labourlawreports.com

On Duty of employee to protect the property of his employer and effect of negligence in respect of -



Dungus & Ors. v.  ENL Consortium Ltd.  [2015]  60 N.L.L.R (Pt. 209) 39

On Duty of employee  to protect the property of his  employer and effect of negligence in respect of -
        An employee owes it a duty to his employer to protect its property or use same in such a way that no preventable loss would occur. Where he is tardy or there is lack of diligence in his approach to his duty or he is negligent and the master by the same suffers loss due to the unacceptable and untoward behavior of the employee, such employee is guilty of misconduct to which the appropriate disciplinary action can be taken against him. [Abomeli v. NRC [1995] 1 NWLR (Pt. 372) 451 CA referred to.] (Pp. 89-90, Paras. H-B)

On Test for determining whether suspicion was reasonable where an employer discipline on an employee based on suspicion -





         
Odiase v. Auchi Polytechnic, Auchi [2015] 60 N.L.L.R (Part 208)   1                 


On Test for determining whether suspicion was reasonable where an employer discipline on an employee based on suspicion -
    
   Where suspicion is the basis of exerting disciplinary action on employee, in such cases it is open to the court to enquire if a reasonable employer could honestly have come to hold such suspicion on the particular facts of the case  and if the answer is "yes" then the court could not enquire further into the matter, that is to say, into the propriety or otherwise of acting on the suspicion. In the instant case, the trial court looked at this side of the appellant's case and came to the conclusion that the suspicion leading to the ultimate act of summary dismissal of the appellant was well founded. In this regard, the respondent reserve the right to suspend the appellant based on suspicion and within six months thereof to conduct investigation regarding the suspicion and to reinstate the appellant to his employment on being exonerated by the investigation in line with Art. 4(iii) and (iv) of Exhibit “1”. (P. 214, Paras. B-C, F-G)