The right to organize and collective bargaining in Nigeria

One of the various labour and employment-related rights very close and similar to the freedom of association enjoyed by employers and employees is the right to organize and collective bargaining provided for by the ‘’Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1948 (№98)’’

The treaty has 16 articles. The convention concerning the application of the principles of the right to organise and to bargain collectively was adopted at the 32nd International Labour Conference session on July 1, 1949, and entered into force on July 18, 1951. Once the treaty was ratified on October 17, 1960, by Nigeria, it became binding, enforceable, still in force and considered in some Nigerian municipal laws, like the Labour Act, the Trade Unions Act, and the Nigerian Constitution. The right to organize and collective bargaining implies that

1. Workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination concerning their employment. Particularly, in respect of acts calculated to: (a) make the employment of a worker subject to the condition that he shall not join a union or shall relinquish trade union membership; (b) cause the dismissal of or otherwise prejudice a worker because of union membership or because of participation in union activities outside working hours or, with the consent of the employer, within working hours.

2. Workers’ and employers’ organisations shall enjoy adequate protection against any acts of interference by each other or each other’s agents or members in their establishment, functioning, or administration. Particularly, acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organisations under the domination of employers or employers’ organisations, or to support workers’ organisations by financial or other means, with the object of placing such organisations under the control of employers or employers’ organisations, shall be deemed to constitute acts of interference within the meaning of this Article 2 of the convention.

3. Machinery appropriate to national conditions shall be established, where necessary, to ensure respect for the right to organise as defined in the preceding articles.

4. Measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilisation of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers’ organisations and workers’ organisations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment using collective agreements.

5. The extent to which the guarantees provided for in this convention shall apply to the armed forces and the police shall be determined by national laws or regulations. By the principle outlined in paragraph 8 of Article 19 of the constitution of the International Labour Organisation, the ratification of this convention by any member shall not be deemed to affect any existing law, award, custom or agreement in virtue of which members of the armed forces or the police enjoy any right guaranteed by this Convention.

6. This convention does not deal with the position of public servants engaged in the administration of the state, nor shall it be construed as prejudicing their rights or status in any way.

It would be apt to relay the attitude of Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip, PhD, in the case of Amalgamated Union of Public Corporations, Civil Service Technical and Recreational Services Employees (AUPCTRE) vs Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) & The Registrar General Corporate Affairs Commission Suit No. NICN/ABJ/62/2021I on the core subject matter of the treaty.

Although, the Honorable Justice did not refer to the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1948 (№98), His words, albeit strong warning, further support and expose the importance of one of the rights provided for by the treaty and by inference the importance of the ’Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1948 (№98)’’

He expressed displeasure at the actions of the defendants, who over the years have shown marked displeasure and disapproval to having trade unionism take place and flourish, especially the 1st defendant, since CAC v. AUPCTRE [2004] 1 NLLR (Pt. 1) 1.

He observed that the defendants have never hidden their dislike of trade unionism on their premises. Even when the court ruled against them, they managed to come up with something new and different. They must come to terms with the reality that trade unionism has come to stay and respect the laws governing it. Their dislike for trade unions must cease. The law referred to by the Honorable Justice is the Trade Unions Act which was copiously cited in the judgment. The Act was greatly influenced by the ’Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1948 (№98) following its ratification by Nigeria

The Honorable Justice warned, ‘’This court will not sit by and allow them to do as they wish. A word, it is said, is enough for the wise.’’

This article also appears in Opinion Nigeria on January 24, 2024