Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Nigeria (Ratification: 1960)

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2018, Publication: 107th ILC session (2018)



A Government representative indicated that the Government was fully committed to meet its obligations under the Convention. The allegations relating to anti-union discrimination and impediment to collective bargaining were unfounded. Employers and workers had the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing in full freedom. The right to freedom of association and to organize derived from the Constitution and the Trade Unions Act. Such Act made the recognition of registered trade unions obligatory for employers whenever workers expressed their interest to join a trade union. The only categories of workers excluded from unionization were those engaged in essential services such as the Customs and Excise Department, the Immigration Department, the Prison Services and the Central Bank of Nigeria. Those exclusions were due to national interests and security reasons. However, the Joint Consultative Committees established in those institutions protected the interests of the workers, who were often afforded better working conditions than those engaged in other sectors of the public service. On the issue of impediment to collective bargaining, trade unions or workers’ representatives had the right to bargain collectively with their employers for the purpose of setting terms and conditions of work without any interference whatsoever by the Government. Moreover, the issue of prohibiting an employer from granting a general wage increase without the approval of the Minister as stipulated in section 19 of the Trade Disputes Act, would be brought to the attention of the Tripartite Technical Committee which was currently reviewing labour legislation. Yet, it was important to affirm that in practice, there were no restrictions whatsoever as to general or percentage increases in wages by an employer. The national minimum wage was stipulated by law and the social partners needed to reach a consensus with the tripartite plus body before a minimum national wage could be fixed. The statutory requirement of depositing collective agreements with the Federal Ministry of Labour was purely for record purposes and for monitoring their implementation. In relation to export processing zones (EPZs), trade unions were now fully operating and involved in the resolution of disputes. Trade unions operating in the EPZs included the Amalgamated Union of Public Corporations, the Civil Service Technical and Recreational Services Employees (AUPCTRE), the National Union of Food, Beverage, and Tobacco Employees (NUFBTE), the National Union of Hotels and Personal Services Workers (NUHPSW), the National Union of Civil Engineering, Construction, Furniture and Wood Workers (NUCECFWW), the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN) and the Nigeria Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG).

The Employer members addressed the following issues raised by the Committee of Experts in 2010, 2012 and 2017: the denial of the right to organize to certain categories of employees and anti-union discrimination; the requirement for collective agreements to be approved by the Minister of Labour; and the handling of employer–employee disputes by the authorities. According to the Committee of Experts, acts of anti-union discrimination included the use of blacklists against trade union officers; transfers, relocation, demotion, withdrawal of benefits, restrictions of all kinds, non-renewal of contracts and dismissals. At the national level, the definition of essential services in the Trade Disputes Act included the Central Bank of Nigeria, the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company Limited, any corporate body licensed to carry out banking business under the Banking Act, postal service, sound broadcasting, maintaining ports, harbours, docks or aerodromes, transportation of persons, goods or livestock by road, rail, sea or river, road cleaning, and refuse collection. The Employer members recalled that the Committee of Experts had observed that certain categories of workers were denied the right to organize (such as employees of the Customs and Excise Department, the Immigration Department, the Nigerian Security Printing and Mining Company Limited, the prison services and the Central Bank of Nigeria) and therefore were deprived of the right to collective bargaining. It had also considered that essential services included “those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population”. Nigeria had listed a number of services as essential services, considering their importance to national security and stability. The Employer members did not agree that the definition of essential services was broad as observed by the Committee of Experts. The list was in response to the national needs of Nigeria and therefore in compliance with Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention. However, taking into account the concerns raised by the trade unions regarding these exceptions, the Government had elaborated the Collective Labour Relations Bill which had expressly removed the exceptions. The Employer members expressed their satisfaction at the tripartite process that had led to the development and validation of the Bill and looked forward to its submission to Parliament for enactment.

Concerning the registration of collective agreements with the Ministry of Labour, the Employer members had always considered that the sections of the Wages Boards and Industrial Council Act and the Trade Disputes Act, which made it an offence for an employer to generally adjust wages upwards without the approval of the Minister, were irrelevant, had never been enforced and should therefore be repealed. They disagreed with the Committee of Experts’ view that private sector collective bargaining rights were restricted by the requirement of the Government’s approval of any collective agreements on wages. Sectorial unions and the respective employers’ organizations in the private sector freely negotiated and entered into collective agreements every two years. The agreements were then filed with the Ministry of Labour whose main role was to assist in the event there was a need for mediation. Finally, the Employer members indicated that, under the 1992 Decree on Export Processing Zones, the functions of the EPZ Authority included the resolution of disputes between employers and employees in consultation with the Federal Ministry of Employment, Labour and Productivity. The Authority’s role was to facilitate and serve as observer through collective bargaining between sectorial unions and the respective employers. This was in line with the consultative nature of its functions under the Decree. Therefore, the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively had been preserved. In conclusion, the Employer members considered that the Convention had been adhered to, but Nigeria had, in a consultative manner, put in place mechanisms to better implement its provisions. The Collective Labour Relations Bill responded to concerns raised by the trade unions regarding the exemptions from the rights to organize and bargain collectively and unions, such as the Technical and Recreational Services Employees, had started organizing their members within the EPZs. They therefore encouraged the Government to expedite the processes of enactment.

The Worker members considered that the right to organize and bargain collectively had witnessed a steady and systematic erosion. For a number of years, the Committee of Experts had been pointing to serious violations of the Convention and had been asking the Government to bring its laws and practice into line with the Convention and to report on all progress made in this regard. However, the last time the Government had submitted its report was in 2012. Since then, it had ignored the Committee of Experts’ requests and disregarded its reporting obligations. This was a case of serious failure to report and was to be regretted. The very essence of the ILO supervisory system was in the dialogue with the constituents. This system was based on the information on the application of the Conventions provided by governments. The failure to submit reports undermined the supervisory system and the very functioning of the ILO. The Worker members called on the Government to live up to its reporting obligations as a matter of urgency. The Convention was interwoven with the realization of other fundamental rights at work and it was unfortunate that many new violations had occurred in the country since 2012. Those without the right to organize were also denied the right to bargain collectively. Anti-union dismissals, transfers, relocations, demotions, non-renewal of contracts of employment, pressure and harassment and withdrawal of benefits or non-payment of remuneration had been taking place in the public and private sectors alike. In January 2018, 21,000 primary school teachers had been dismissed by the Kaduna State Government for having protested against the introduction of a competency test administered without due consultations and aimed at unilaterally reducing the number of teachers on the payroll of the State. Kaduna State had also failed to implement the collective bargaining agreements. When the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC) had expressed its solidarity with the affected teachers it had received public threats of sanction from the State Government. The Governor of the State had prohibited trade union activities. In this respect, it should be emphasized that the Convention applied to public sector workers and only the rights of those involved in the defence and security forces and those directly engaged in the administration of the State could be restricted. The Convention did not exclude persons employed by the Government, workers in public enterprises or autonomous public institutions, nor teachers. Furthermore, the denial of the rights to organize and bargain collectively, and lack of protection of trade unionists from violence and hostility may have very serious consequences. It could result in violent murders of trade unionists. The Worker members recalled the assassination of Abdulmumuni Yakubu, the branch chairperson of the Non-Academic Staff Union of Kogi State (NASU) at his home by an unknown gunman in November 2017. This murder had occurred at the height of negotiations with the Kogi State Government and strike actions over prolonged non-payment of wages. Kogi State had effectively banned the academic and non-academic staff unions in the tertiary institutions. They further recalled the assassination of Mr Alhaji Saula Saka, the Lagos Zonal Chairman of the National Union of Road Transport Workers in 2010. Both cases remained unresolved and reflected the dangerous situation trade union leaders were confronting and the absence of security and protection in the performance of their activities. The Government must arrest and prosecute the perpetrators and stop the growing and brazing impunity. In the private sector, the situation was equally serious. According to the Association of Senior Staff of Bank and Financial Institutions, 337 workers had been dismissed in June 2015 for having tried to join a union. About 700 workers of another company had been dismissed in Lagos in September 2015 for the same reason. The situation was no different for workers in the telecommunications sector. In some cases they had to denounce their intention of unionization as a condition of employment.

The Wages Boards and Industrial Council Act was particularly alarming as it provided that every agreement on wages must be registered with the Ministry of Labour for approval or disapproval as to its binding nature. It also made it an offence for an employer to grant a general or percentage increase in wages without the approval of the Minister. In practice, the effect of this was that national minimum wage negotiations were used as a pretext to frustrate, prevent, delay and, in some cases, deny, voluntary collective bargaining over wages. This was not in compliance with the Convention, which required member States to ensure that collective bargaining was implemented through a voluntary mechanism. Furthermore, the Convention applied to workers in EPZs. However, sections 3(1) and 4(e) of the Decree on Export Processing Zones ran counter to the right to organize and the right to collective bargaining. Its section 4(e) provided that “employer–employee” disputes were not matters to be handled by trade unions but rather by an authority managing the zone. Section 3(1) also made it very difficult for workers to form or join trade unions by making it almost impossible for workers’ representatives to gain free access to such zones. The Worker members believed that this situation of violation, anti-union discrimination, interference and lack of protection for trade unionists existed because of the gaps in the labour legislation and the very weak labour administrative mechanisms. Section 11 of the Trade Unions Act denied the personnel of the Customs and Excise Department, the Immigration Department, the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company, the Prison Services, Nigeria Telecommunications and the Central Bank of Nigeria the right to organize and thus, to collective bargaining. They expressed their concern at section 7(9) of the Trade Unions Act, which empowered the responsible Minister to revoke the certificate of registration of trade unions without a judicial process or clearly outlined administrative procedures and guarantees. Section 8 of the Act automatically imposed trade union membership on federal government teachers without their consent. They further regretted that section 3(1) and (2) of the Act required a very high threshold of a minimum of 50 workers to establish a trade union at the enterprise level and restricted the formation and registration of other unions in sectors where one union already existed. They noted with concern that sections 30 and 42 of the Act imposed restrictions on the right to collective action and provided for imprisonment for non-recognized strikes and for compulsory arbitration with an overly broad definition of essential services. Sections 39 and 40 granted the registrar of trade unions the power to supervise union accounts at any time. Furthermore, the Collective Labour Relations Bill, which had been drafted with the support of the ILO and the involvement of the social partners and which had been pending for a decade or so, had been unilaterally amended by the Government ignoring the views of the social partners. The Worker members, like the Committee of Experts, requested that the Bill be brought into full conformity with the Convention and further urged that the Bill be adopted without unnecessary delay. The situation of the near breakdown in collective bargaining was systemic and was the outcome of the existing legislation and the way the governance institutions functioned in Nigeria. It was therefore urgent for the Government to take a holistic review of its labour legislation to ensure that it was amended to reflect international labour standards and to give effect to the principle of free collective bargaining. The labour administration mechanisms and institutions, including the police and other law enforcement agencies, needed to receive training in order to effectively inspect and supervise compliance with international labour standards to avoid any abuses and prevent impunity. Many of the serious violations of the Convention could have been prevented if the Government had followed the recommendations of the Committee of Experts. The Worker members urged the Government to comply with its obligations and restore, in full consultation with the social partners and in cooperation with the ILO, the right to organize and to bargain collectively in the country.

The Worker member of Nigeria stated that Nigeria operated a federal system with 36 states with their own governments, a Federal Government Territory and a central Government. Issues of labour relations were in the Exclusive List of the Nigerian Constitution with federal government supervision and oversight. While infractions of the Convention existed in the private sector, most of those in the public sector were perpetrated by State Governments. In 2017, the Government of Kaduna State had dismissed 38,000 workers, of which 21,000 teachers, about 5,000 local government council staff and over 8,000 from ministries, departments, agencies, as well as those in the tertiary institutions under the guise of a vague reform. Dismissals had been carried out without any respect or consideration for the established rules, notably the provisions in the existing public sector collective bargaining procedures. The NLC had officially reported this violation to the Ministry of Labour, with no tangible outcome to date from the intervention proposed by the Ministry, while the situation continued to deteriorate. The disregard for collective bargaining laws and practices was such that the Nigeria Union of Teachers had challenged the dismissal in court, had obtained a restraining order to hold the dismissal until the substantive lawsuit was decided, but nonetheless the court order had been disregarded by the State Government. The Kaduna State Government had also violated section 16(A) of the Trade Unions Act, which made it mandatory for employers to deduct and remit union members’ dues to trade unions, not only by withholding seven months deductions to all the unions, but also by issuing a circular to stop deduction completely. All the affected trade unions had filed legal complaints against such actions of the State Government. In Kogi State, the Government was refusing to abide by the collective agreement concerning the payment and protection of wages. Workers and pensioners were owed over seven months’ salary and pension benefits, in spite of repeated genuine efforts by the federal Government to ameliorate the problem through the granting, three times, of a financial bailout to all affected States. In July 2017, instead of negotiating with the teaching and non-teaching staff in the tertiary institutions, the Kogi State Government had proscribed and confiscated the assets of the affected unions, in violation of article 40 of the Nigerian Constitution. The NLC had officially reported such infractions to the Ministry of Labour, who had in turn invited the Kogi State Government to a mediation meeting which the latter did not attend. In November 2017, Abdulmumuni Yakubu Branch Chairman of the NASU had been violently murdered during the period his union was in a hard and difficult negotiation with the Kogi State Government. The non-respect for the provisions of the Convention had impacted on people, households and their communities, as the State Government had failed to honour collective bargaining agreements, especially on salaries and wages. He recalled that interference in collective bargaining in the private sector had been a cause of worry to the Committee of Experts since 2009, but there were still benchmarks for wages, since the Government’s approval was required for any collective agreement before it became implementable, allegedly to ensure that there would be no “undue economic disruption”. This contradicted Article 4 of the Convention. It was reported that the National Minimum Wage Bill would not be finalized by September 2018, contrary to the agreement with the social partners. The Minister was thus unilaterally determining the negotiation outcome, in infraction of the Convention. Discussions on the Collective Labour Relations Bill were ongoing for over ten years. The process had been very slow and delayed, which raised concerns as to the Government’s intention. Against the advice of the Committee of Experts to bring labour laws into conformity with the Convention, the Government had been using the process to weaken and destroy trade unions. Indeed, the new version of the Collective Labour Relations Bill foresaw that if after two years of commencement of its application, the NLC had not amended its constitution to conform to it, the latter would stand proscribed. Such Bill was not a product of consultation, as it was largely different from the one the unions had made inputs to, and would have surreptitiously been passed into law, but for their vigilance and Parliament’s due diligence. He concluded by asking the Committee to call on the Government to allow for genuine and good faith engineering of the intended labour law reforms and to ensure that the Government worked genuinely with the high-level mission that had been proposed on several occasions.

The Government member of Zimbabwe welcomed the information submitted by the Government, in particular in relation to the current review of the legislation on collective bargaining. It was encouraging that trade unions were now allowed to fully operate in the EPZs and were involved in the dispute resolution mechanisms. That was also a sign of progress and the result of an effort to meet the social partners’ needs. All social partners were urged to show the same commitment in complying with the Convention. The ILO’s technical support to the Government and its social partners was necessary to strengthen their tripartite structures.

An observer representing Public Services International (PSI) pointed out that section 11 of the Trade Disputes Act prohibited workers in a number of sectors and state-run companies to organize and thus deprived them of the right to bargain collectively. Moreover, the right of firefighters to organize was also denied pursuant to the Trade Unions (Prohibition) (Federal Fire Service) Order. In 2013, under the Universal Periodic Review, at its 17th Session, the Humans Right Council had also recommended to the Government to amend the Trade Unions Act in order to guarantee freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right of collective bargaining. Workers in the public sector, including in such critical sectors as health services, across more than half of the 36 States were currently owed monthly salaries for a period of between three and 18 months. While the Government had announced in October 2017 its intention to make another tranche of bailout funds available to address the situation, it appeared that the funds had not been yet secured. The lack of an appropriate system of social dialogue had made this problem even worse and the situation had led to unrest and protests in many sectors in those States. The Committee should request the Government to fully involve the unions in the legislative reform and to ensure that the bailout funds, once released, were fully disbursed for the payment of outstanding salaries to public sector workers, with no part thereof being diverted or otherwise appropriated by the State Governments.

The Government member of Algeria expressed his support for the Government of Nigeria and encouraged it to continue its efforts to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. The Government was mindful of its obligations and had taken all the necessary measures to meet them, both in law and in practice. For example, the protection of workers’ rights in essential services was guaranteed through mixed consultative committees. The information provided on collective bargaining allowed the Committee to maintain a link with the real situation. Indeed, it was essential that the Committee took into consideration the socio-economic environment of States in its evaluation of their performance with a view to respecting national sovereignty.

The Worker member of Eswatini (formerly known as Swaziland), speaking also on behalf of trade unions in the Southern African Trade Union Coordinating Council (SATUCC), recalled the ILO definition of essential services. The Trade Disputes Act classified employees in the Customs and Excise Department, the Immigration Department, the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company Limited, the Prisons Services and the Central Bank of Nigeria as persons providing essential services who could not enjoy the right to organize. That list was familiar as it was similar to the list of essential services in the South African region. The basis for services to be qualified as essential was unclear. The list referred not only to services related to the safety and security of people, but also to workers engaged in currency printing and in fiscal and monetary management. Workers in charge of essential services made sacrifices for the economy and their communities. Their rights should not be stifled. Experience proved that when workers had an organized platform to express their grievances, industrial disharmony was substantially reduced. In October 2017, in Kaduna State and in January 2018 in Delta State, personnel of the police force had peacefully protested for the non-payment of two months’ of salary. If the personnel were allowed to organize, they certainly would have made use of their organization to negotiate and resolve the issue. To allow those workers to organize themselves into unions of their free choice was a right unambiguously provided for by the Convention. The Government should avail itself of ILO technical assistance to comprehensively reform the Trade Disputes Act with the genuine and full consultation and participation of the social partners.

The Government member of Libya supported the statement made by the Government of Nigeria and considered that Nigeria was in compliance with the Convention. The Constitution guaranteed the right to freedom of association without interference whatsoever by the Government. The willingness of the Government to ensure compliance with the Convention was also proved by the bills brought before Parliament. It was important to support the efforts made by the Government in collaboration with the social partners and it was hoped that the Committee would consider those efforts when adopting its conclusions.

The Worker member of Mali expressed his solidarity with the population of Nigeria and referred to the challenge of insecurity arising from the presence of criminal and extremist forces in Nigeria, as in Mali. The fact that workers and trade union leaders in Nigeria were attacked, intimidated, dismissed and even killed on account of their trade union activities was a source of serious concern, as was the fact that there had been no conclusive investigations or arrests, prosecutions initiated or penalties imposed in those cases. Such was the case for the murder in 2010 of Alhaji Saula Saka, president of the local branch of the National Union of Road Transport Workers in Lagos, and that of Mallam Abdulmumuni Yakubu, President of the NASU, who had been killed at the end of 2017 at a time when his union was engaged in difficult negotiations with the Kogi State Government. It was unacceptable that those two murders had not been solved and that those responsible had not been brought to justice. Such impunity had consequences. Firstly, intimidation, harassment, threats and murder were some of the tools used by the other social partners to interact with workers and their leaders. Those practices had the aim of intimidating trade unionists, dispersing them and undermining their determination to assert the human rights and other civil liberties necessary for their organization and their engagement in collective bargaining. Secondly, the impunity surrounding those despicable acts had become the rule and was an obstacle to any sense of responsibility or equity. Consequently, it must be tackled. In conclusion, the Government should be urged to take dissuasive measures to end the attacks on workers and trade union leaders and to rapidly commence the appropriate investigations and initiate prosecutions regarding the cases of murder. Lastly, it was important to establish a favourable climate, free from intimidation, in which trade union organizations could constructively engage in social dialogue.

The Government member of Cameroon expressed her support for the Government of Nigeria and thanked it for the information provided to the Committee. Measures had been implemented to ensure a better application of the Convention, notably through the preparation of draft laws that were submitted to Parliament. The Government should be encouraged to continue along that path, with the necessary technical cooperation from the Office.

The Worker member of Ghana pointed out that the case was being discussed by the Committee not to shame the Government but rather in order to obtain additional information on the alleged violations of the Convention with a view to seek better implementation thereof. The reported infractions included threats, arrests, beatings and detention used as strategies to discourage and frighten workers and trade union leaders from organizing and pursuing collective bargaining. In April 2015, Aminu Kolawole, the chairperson of the Air Transport Services Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (ATSSSAN) and Lawson Imotto, the secretary, together with Chukwu Jude and Kingsley Ejiogu, the chairperson and the secretary of the National Union of Air Transport Employees (NUATE), were dismissed for organizing workers and demanding that the management enter into negotiation with the union. Lawson Imotto was arrested and taken to an unknown destination. In September 2015, over 700 workers were dismissed in one swoop in south-west Nigeria for having wanted to exercise their right to freedom of association. The workers had only found out about their dismissal when they had returned to work and found the gate locked with a notice of employment termination. The company in question had prevented workers from unionizing even after the intervention by the Ministry of Labour. The tactic of dismissing trade union leaders was a direct way of undermining the right to organize: “deal with the leader, and the members will flee”. The cases of four leaders, Akeem Ambali, the chairperson of the NLC in Ogun State (south-west Nigeria) and three other officers, Dare Ilekoya, Nola Balogun and Eniola Atiku, who in April 2017 had been suspended along with 15 others for demanding that the State Government respect the agreement it had reached with the union on salary payment, was another case in point. While 15 of the 19 suspended workers had been reinstated, the leaders remained suspended indefinitely. Mr Joseph Ogunyemi, former chairperson of an automobile union, had demanded that working conditions be regulated through collective bargaining and had suffered a similar fate. The speaker called on the Committee to urge the Government to accept an ILO high-level mission to improve and advance Nigeria’s industrial relations practice.

The Worker member of Norway, speaking on behalf of trade unions in the Nordic countries, recalled that since 2010, several serious allegations of violation of the Convention had been observed, including restrictions on the right to organize and the right to bargain collectively. The Trade Disputes Act denied the right to organize to certain categories of workers. The Decree on Export Processing Zones made it almost impossible for workers to form or join trade unions as these did not have free access to the EPZs, which operated as “protected territories”. It appeared that article 40 of the Nigerian Constitution, which gave the right to freely assemble, associate and to form trade unions and other associations was not operational. As a result, a large number of workers were deprived of the right to collective bargaining. Every agreement on wages needed to be registered and approved by the Ministry of Labour. This did not contribute to free collective bargaining. She fully supported the recommendations of the Committee of Experts and urged the Government to ensure that the legislation be amended so as to ensure that workers could bargain collectively, and to step up social dialogue with workers and employers instead of limiting fundamental workers’ rights.

An observer representing IndustriALL Global Union expressed concern at the reported anti-union activities of international oil companies operating in Nigeria which were preventing tens of thousands of contract workers from joining a union and defending their rights. The fragmentation of contracts to frustrate unionizing efforts was common and the practice of casualization and precarious working conditions were entrenched in the Nigerian oil industry. Workers were obliged to sign a pre-engagement commitment not to become a union member. This made precarious workers dread association with the union. The companies refused to implement rulings of Industrial Arbitration Panels whenever they ruled against them and severed ties with a contracting company if the latter had unionized workers. Denied collective bargaining powers, contract workers endured poverty wages, dire health and safety conditions, and absence of job security and labour rights. This had led to social deprivation and an upsurge in crime. The repressive anti-labour activities of oil and gas companies had accentuated the social upheavals in the Niger Delta region, resulting in revolts in the form of organized attacks on installations, hostage taking and community insurgence. She called on the Government to ensure that all workers at international oil companies had the right to organize.

The Government representative took note of the discussions and reiterated the Government’s full commitment to the application of the Convention. As stated by the Worker member of Nigeria, the country operated a very complex social and economic structure, with a Federal State and 36 State Governments. She clarified that the infringements under examination had been made by State Governments and not by the federal Government and that the latter had no control whatsoever over the autonomous State Governments. The federal Government had the constitutional responsibility to administer labour issues. When infractions by a State Government were brought to its attention, the federal Government did not fail to invite the parties to solve the issues. That had also occurred in relation to the case of Kogi State mentioned above. It was important to note that the transactions related to the case had lasted approximately seven months and the State Governor had engaged with the social partners but no agreement had been reached. The Ministry of Labour was still engaging with the Kogi State Governor to find a solution. With regard to the decision of the State Governor of Kaduna State to terminate 21,000 teachers in public primary schools, it was important to clarify that many of those teachers had been appointed fraudulently and were not qualified for their work. Before reaching that decision, the State Governor had engaged with the national union of teachers for a period for two years to solve the issue. That dismissal had been the result of an investigation and only teachers that had fraudulent documents had been dismissed. She requested the Committee to take that information into account when preparing the conclusions. In relation to salaries, most cases of non-payment of wages affected State Governments, therefore the federal Government was not involved. On the contrary, the federal Government had released 1.8 trillion naira to State Governments for solving the issue of wage arrears. However, some State Governments had not prioritized that issue. The federal Government had therefore engaged with the social partners concerned to ensure that resources were used for the purpose for which they were allocated. With regard to the assassination of trade union leaders, the speaker indicated that the statements made during the present discussion were unfounded. The issue of security was prominent in Nigeria and episodes of murders did not only concern trade unionists. Investigations were being carried out and the cases were before national courts awaiting decisions. The Government committed to provide further information on the outcome once the decisions became available. With regard to the Collective Labour Relations and other Bills, there had been progress but, based on the comments of the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee, the Government had recalled the bills to improve their content and bring them into conformity with international labour standards. It was also important to underline that the Government had carried out consultations with the social partners concerned with a view to reform legislation and ensure its conformity with international labour standards and with the Convention in particular.

The Worker members, while welcoming the Government’s stated intention to comply with the obligations under the Convention, expressed disappointment at the attitude of denial that serious problems with regard to trade union rights existed in the country. Noting the Government’s explanation on the separation of powers between the federal and State Governments, they recalled that when a member State ratified a Convention, it was the responsibility of the federal Government to ensure compliance therewith. The Worker members expressed their serious and grave concerns about the gradual and systematic erosion of collective bargaining rights in Nigeria as well as the failure of the Government to submit its reports in response to the observations of the Committee of Experts. They further regretted that legal gaps and disregard for collective bargaining rights had resulted in systematic and repeated anti-union discrimination. The Worker members expressed concern at the harassment, intimidation and anti-union discrimination of workers who had expressed the desire to join a union and to bargain collectively in the private sector, including in the telecommunications, and oil and gas sectors. They were equally concerned about the denial of the right to organize to some public sector workers, including those employed in the EPZs, customs, and the Central Bank of Nigeria. To address the growing impunity, the Government should investigate the killings of trade unionists, arrest and prosecute the perpetrators. The Government must reform the labour governance mechanisms to ensure effective supervision and regular inspections backed by an efficient labour market information system for monitoring and evaluating compliance with the Convention. The Government should also build the capacity of labour inspectors and administrators, the police and law enforcement authorities and provide them with adequate resources and training to deliver on their mandate. The Government must, in consultation with the social partners, amend relevant laws, including the Trade Unions Act, the Wages Board and Industrial Council Act, the Decree on Export Processing Zones and the Collective Labour Relations Bill. In order to effectively address these concerns and engage in the necessary reforms, the Worker members urged the Government to accept an ILO direct contacts mission and avail itself of ILO technical assistance.

The Employer members considered that the Government was acting in good faith and had responded with clear arguments to the numerous allegations made against it. However their view was that it was inappropriate to comment on cases that had not been concluded before competent courts in Nigeria. It was their view that in this regard the Government had satisfied the request to have the matters investigated. The respective cases had already been submitted to the competent courts and were awaiting decisions. It was important to underline that Nigeria operated in a complex government system and that the Convention left it to national law to determine which categories of employees could be excluded from its application. Consultations were still taking place on the adoption of the Collective Labour Relations Bill. The Government should be encouraged to fast track the process and to avail itself of ILO technical assistance with a view to addressing the issues raised. In relation to EPZs, taking note of the fact that certain employers did not have unions in place, the Government needed to support those employers to promote unionization in those areas, without effecting their rights under Convention No. 87 on freedom of association and the protection of the right to organize.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the oral statements made by the Government representative and the discussion that followed.

The Committee deeply regretted the Government’s failure to submit its report to the Committee of Experts since 2012.

Taking into account the Government’s submissions and the discussion that followed, the Committee urged the Government to:

- bring relevant legislation, including the Trade Union Act, Trade Dispute Act, Wages Board and Industrial Council Act, the 1992 Decree on Export Processing Zones and the Collective Labour Relations Bill in line with the Convention;

- conduct effective investigations and carry out prosecutions with respect to all allegations of anti-union violence and discrimination; and

- put adequate and effective enforcement mechanisms in place to ensure that the principles and rights protected by the Convention are effectively applied in practice.

The Committee repeats the Committee of Experts invitation to the Government to accept an ILO direct contacts mission in order to tackle the pending issues and report progress to the Committee of Experts before its November 2018 meeting.

Another Government representative indicated that all the comments of the Committee members had been duly noted, as had the conclusions reached by the Committee. He pledged, once again, his country’s full commitment to respect all the articles of the Convention, and to ensure that all levels of Government fully complied with the Convention’s obligations. However, that would involve engaging the social partners in a time-consuming process of constructive dialogue. Social dialogue and consensus-building, which were essential to an enabling industrial relations environment, required the patience and cooperation of all. He therefore appealed to the Committee for more time to allow the process to continue, with the expectation that full compliance would be achieved. His Government further solicited technical assistance from the ILO to strengthen its capacity to drive and deliver the process of engagement with the social partners. He expressed confidence that, with perseverance and cooperation, the process would mature and flourish as an example to be followed. He also expressed the view that the proposed direct contacts mission was premature, in light of the proactive steps taken by his Government and the social partners. He assured the Committee that the report to the next ILC session in 2019 would reflect full or substantial compliance, both in law and in practice, with all the observations of the Committee of Experts, and reaffirmed his Government’s commitment to comply with the provisions of the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

In its previous observation, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on any investigations, and the results thereof, into allegations of anti-union discrimination and interference in the banking, education, electricity, petroleum, gas and telecommunications sectors, as referred to in successive communications from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC). The Committee notes that the Government reports that it is working on sectorial guidelines to address anti-union discrimination and interference. Observing that in its 2021 observations under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the ITUC denounces massive dismissals for trying to join trade unions, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary actions to ensure that the allegations of anti-union discrimination referred to by the ITUC in its previous observations give rise to specific investigations. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the results thereof as well as on the progress made towards the adoption of the abovementioned sectorial guidelines.

The Committee also requested the Government to send its comments on allegations of Education International (EI) and the Nigeria Union of Teachers (NUT) denouncing the promotion of a non-registered union in the education sector by various state governments, which would appear to constitute attempted interference. The Committee notes that the Government limits itself to indicating that the Academic Staff Union of Secondary School has not been registered at the federal level. The Committee recalls that the intervention by an employer - either public or private - to promote the establishment of a parallel trade union constitutes an act of interference by the employer in the functioning of a workers’ association, which is prohibited under Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that Article 2 of the Convention is complied with in the education sector, both at the State and federal levels.

Scope of application of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under the provisions of the legislation certain categories of workers (such as employees of the Customs and Excise Department, the Immigration Department, the prison services and the Central Bank of Nigeria) were denied the right to organize and were deprived of the right to collective bargaining. It noted that some of these categories involve public sector workers not engaged in the administration of the State and requested the Government to provide information on the results of its consultations within the National Labour Advisory Council (NLAC) and any follow-up action taken, particularly with regard to recognition of the right to collective bargaining. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates its previous explanation that these exclusions are made on the grounds of the national interest and national security. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that the NLAC has been inaugurated and that the issue raised will be discussed at subsequent meetings. The Committee recalls that, according to Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, only members of the armed forces and the police, as well as public servants engaged in the administration of the State may be excluded from the guarantees set out in the Convention. Regretting the lack of progress regarding this issue, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the full recognition of the right to collective bargaining of all public sector workers not engaged in the administration of the State, and to provide information on its consultations within the NLAC and on the practical results achieved in this regard.

Article 4. Free and voluntary negotiation. The Committee previously requested the Government to provide explanations regarding the legal obligation to submit any collective agreements on wages to government approval, and noted the Government’s indication that in practice there is no restriction with regard to wage increases adopted by an employer but that this obligation, which appears in section 19 of the Trade Disputes Act, would be brought to the attention of the tripartite technical committee which was reviewing the labour legislation. The Committee notes with regret that the Government does not provide any information on this matter in its report. The Committee once again requests the Government to take concrete steps to amend section 19 of the Trade Disputes Act in order to ensure full observance of the principle of voluntary collective negotiations in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this respect.

In its previous observation, the Committee noted the Government’s intention to ensure that the reform of the labour legislation undertaken in consultation with the social partners was in conformity with international labour standards and trusted that the new Collective Labour Relations Act and any other texts adopted in the context of the reform of the Labour Law would be in full conformity with the requirements of the Convention. It notes the Government’s indication that the social partners will soon hold a meeting to validate the Labour Bills before forwarding them to the National Assembly for legislative action. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on any developments in relation to the reform of the labour legislation and recalls that it can avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 107th Session, May–June 2018)

The Committee notes the discussion which took place in the Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference (hereinafter, the Conference Committee) in June 2018 concerning the application of the Convention by Nigeria. The Committee observes that the Conference Committee, in its conclusions, urged the Government to: (i) bring relevant legislation, including the Trade Unions Act, Trade Disputes Act, Wages Board and Industrial Council Act, the 1992 Decree on Export Processing Zones and the Collective Labour Relations Bill into line with the Convention; (ii) conduct effective investigations and carry out prosecutions with respect to all allegations of anti-union violence and discrimination; and (iii) put adequate and effective enforcement mechanisms in place to ensure that the principles and rights protected by the Convention are effectively applied in practice. Lastly, the Conference Committee repeated the Committee of Experts’ invitation to the Government to accept an ILO direct contacts mission which was to report during the current year on progress made. Observing that the direct contacts mission has not yet taken place, the Committee expresses the hope that the Government will accept it in the near future so that the mission can observe the measures taken and the progress achieved regarding the issues raised in relation to the application of the Convention.

The Committee recalls that it has been referring for many years to observations received from international trade union organizations, in particular the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and Education International (EI), and from a national union (the Nigeria Union of Teachers (NUT)), describing acts of anti-union discrimination, interference and obstruction with regard to collective bargaining, without the Government having sent its comments in this regard. The Committee notes the statement made by the Government representative to the Conference Committee in June 2018, indicating that the country operates a complex social and economic structure, with a federal State and 36 autonomous state governments, and whenever infringements committed by state governments are brought to the attention of the federal Government, the latter, which has responsibility for administering labour issues, makes sure to invite the parties to resolve the issues. For example, with regard to the allegation of the mass dismissal of anti-union nature, in the education sector in the state of Kaduna, the Government indicates that the challenged decision was taken further to a two-year dialogue with the national teaching union to settle the problem of the fraudulent appointment of unqualified staff in primary schools. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any investigations, and the results thereof, into the allegations of anti-union discrimination and interference in the banking, education, electricity, petroleum, gas and telecommunications sectors, as referred to in successive communications from the ITUC. The Committee also requests the Government to send its comments on the allegations of EI and the NUT denouncing the promotion of a non-registered union in the education sector by various state governments, which would appear to constitute attempted interference.

Scope of application of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under the provisions of the legislation certain categories of workers (such as employees of the Customs and Excise Department, the Immigration Department, the prison services and the Central Bank of Nigeria) are denied the right to organize and are deprived of the right to collective bargaining. The Government indicates that these exclusions are made on the grounds of the national interest and national security and that the joint advisory committees established in these institutions take care of the interests of the workers, who often enjoy better conditions of work than those employed in other sections of the public sector. Lastly, the Government points out that the proposal to remove the prohibition on the right of these categories of workers to organize will be referred to the National Labour Advisory Council (NLAC), which is due to meet in the course of the year. The Committee emphasizes that the exclusion of the abovementioned categories from the right to organize raises issues of compatibility with the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and that it will consider this matter when it next examines the application of Convention No. 87 by Nigeria. Noting that some of the abovementioned categories involve public sector workers not engaged in the administration of the State, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the results of the consultations within the NLAC and any follow-up action taken, particularly with regard to recognition of the right to collective bargaining.

Article 4. Free and voluntary negotiation. The Committee recalls that, further to allegations made by ITUC, it asked the Government to provide explanations regarding the legal obligation to submit any collective agreements on wages to government approval. The Committee recalled that legal provisions which make collective agreements subject to the approval of the Ministry of Labour for reasons of economic policy, so that employers’ and workers’ organizations are not able to fix wages freely, are not in conformity with Article 4 of the Convention respecting the promotion and full development of machinery for voluntary collective negotiation. The Committee notes the Government’s reply that the legal obligation to file collective agreements with the Federal Ministry of Labour only exists for the purposes of registration and verification of their implementation. Moreover, while indicating that in practice there is no restriction with regard to wage increases, in terms of figures or percentages, adopted by an employer, the Government indicates that the question of the prohibition on an employer to grant a general wage increase without ministerial approval, which appears in section 19 of the Trade Disputes Act, will be brought to the attention of the tripartite technical committee which is currently reviewing the labour legislation. The Committee notes the explanations provided by the Government and recalls that the legal provisions establishing the obligation to submit collective agreements for prior approval by the authorities are only compatible with the Convention when they are confined to stipulating that approval may be refused if the agreement has a procedural flaw or does not conform to the minimum standards laid down by general labour legislation (see 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 201). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any measures taken to ensure that the law is aligned with the practice as mentioned and gives full effect to the principle of voluntary collective negotiations in accordance with the provisions of the Convention.

Noting the Government’s statement that it intends to ensure that the reform of the labour legislation in progress which it is undertaking in consultation with the social partners is in conformity with international labour standards, the Committee trusts that the new Collective Labour Relations Act and any other texts adopted in the context of the reform of the Labour Law will be in full conformity with the requirements of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to send copies of the aforementioned texts when they have been adopted.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

The Committee notes the new observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 1 September 2017, relating to legislative issues and referring to a high number of allegations of anti-union discrimination and of impediments to collective bargaining. The Committee recalls that, since 2010, it has received many observations from trade union organizations containing serious allegations of violations of the Convention in practice and notes with regret that the Government still has not sent its comments. Noting with concern, in particular, the persistence of many and serious allegations of acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, the Committee urges the Government to ensure that the events reported since 2010, through the various comments of the ITUC, Education International (IE) and the Nigeria Union of Teachers (NUT), have been or are being investigated by the public authorities. The Committee urges the Government to send information in this respect.

The Committee notes with concern that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments, initially made in 2012.

In its previous comments, the Committee noted that certain comments submitted by international trade union organizations concerned in particular the fact that: (1) according to the Trade Disputes Act, certain categories of workers are denied the right to organize (such as employees of the Customs and Excise Department, the Immigration Department, the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company Limited, the prison services and the Central Bank of Nigeria) and therefore are deprived of the right to collective bargaining; (2) every agreement on wages must be registered with the Ministry of Labour, which decides whether the agreement becomes binding according to the Wages Board and Industrial Council Acts and to the Trade Dispute Act (it is an offence for an employer to grant a general or percentage increase in wages without the approval of the Minister); (3) section 4(e) of the 1992 Decree on Export Processing Zones states that “employer–employee” disputes are not matters to be handled by trade unions but rather by the authorities managing these zones; and (4) section 3(1) of the same Decree makes it very difficult for workers to form or join trade unions as it is almost impossible for workers’ representatives to gain free access to the export processing zones (EPZs).

The Committee had noted that the Government had indicated that: with respect to point (1), the Collective Relations Bill has taken care of the mentioned exemptions from the rights to organize and bargain collectively; and as regards points (3) and (4), unionization has commenced, for example, the Amalgamated Union of Public Corporations, Civil Service, and Technical and Recreational Services Employees has started organizing its members within the EPZs. The Committee takes note of this information.

Concerning point (2), the Committee had previously noted a similar more recent allegation of the ITUC (2009) that private sector collective bargaining rights are restricted by the requirement of government approval for any collective agreements on wages. The Committee notes that the Government had indicated in its report that this practice seeks to ensure that there is no undue economic disruption in a particular industry as there is usually a benchmark agreed to by the relevant employers and trade unions. In this regard, the Committee recalls that legal provisions which make collective agreements subject to the approval of the Ministry of Labour for reasons of economic policy, so that employers’ and workers’ organizations are not able to fix wages freely, are not in conformity with Article 4 of the Convention respecting the promotion and full development of machinery for voluntary collective negotiations. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the relevant provisions are amended to give effect to the principle of free collective bargaining.

The Committee had noted the Government’s statement that the Collective Labour Relations Bill, which has been elaborated with the technical assistance of the ILO, is still before the National Assembly and will be forwarded when passed. The Committee expects that the Collective Labour Relations Act will be in full conformity with the requirements of the Convention. It requests the Government to send the new law once adopted.

Lastly, the Committee once again invites the Government to accept an ILO mission in order to tackle the pending issues.

The Committee expects that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 31 August 2016 concerning legislative matters and an important number of alleged cases of anti-union discrimination and obstruction to collective bargaining. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments thereon.

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments.

The Committee notes the observations made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in 2014 and 2015. It requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard.

The Committee notes that the comments on the application of the Convention made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on 31 July 2012, as well as its comments submitted in 2010 and 2011, refer to specific acts of antiunion discrimination including dismissals, transfers and non-union contract clauses in the banking sector, oil and gas sector and education services; anti-union harassment and interference on the part of the employer in the oil and gas and electricity sectors; and anti-union interference on the part of government authorities in the health and education sectors. The Committee further notes the comments submitted by Education International and the Nigeria Union of Teachers (NUT) on 31 August 2012, referring to the lack of any collective bargaining structure for teachers, non-compliance with the collective agreement concluded between the NUT and the Nigeria Governors’ Forum, and acts of antiunion interference through the promotion by the various state governments of an unregistered union, the Academic Staff Union of Secondary Schools. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on the comments above, and invites the Government to submit the issues raised in these comments to a forum of tripartite dialogue and report on its outcome.

In its previous comments, the Committee noted that certain comments submitted by international trade union organizations concerned in particular the fact that: (1) according to the Trade Disputes Act, certain categories of workers are denied the right to organize (such as employees of the Customs and Excise Department, the Immigration Department, the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company Limited, the prison services and the Central Bank of Nigeria) and therefore are deprived of the right to collective bargaining; (2) every agreement on wages must be registered with the Ministry of Labour, which decides whether the agreement becomes binding according to the Wages Board and Industrial Council Acts and to the Trade Dispute Act (it is an offence for an employer to grant a general or percentage increase in wages without the approval of the Minister); (3) section 4(e) of the 1992 Decree on Export Processing Zones states that “employer–employee” disputes are not matters to be handled by trade unions but rather by the authorities managing these zones; and (4) section 3(1) of the same Decree makes it very difficult for workers to form or join trade unions as it is almost impossible for worker representatives to gain free access to the export processing zones (EPZs).

The Committee had noted that the Government had indicated that: with respect to point (1), the Collective Relations Bill has taken care of the mentioned exemptions from the rights to organize and bargain collectively; and as regards points (3) and (4), unionization has commenced, for example, the Amalgamated Union of Public Corporations, Civil Service, and Technical and Recreational Services Employees has started organizing its members within the EPZ. The Committee takes note of this information.

Concerning point (2), the Committee had previously noted a similar more recent allegation of the ITUC (2009) that private sector collective bargaining rights are restricted by the requirement of government approval for any collective agreements on wages. The Committee notes that the Government had indicated in its report that this practice seeks to ensure that there is no undue economic disruption in a particular industry as there is usually a benchmark agreed to by the relevant employers and trade unions. In this regard, the Committee recalls that legal provisions which make collective agreements subject to the approval of the Ministry of Labour for reasons of economic policy, so that employers’ and workers’ organizations are not able to fix wages freely, are not in conformity with Article 4 of the Convention respecting the promotion and full development of machinery for voluntary collective negotiations.  The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the relevant provisions are amended to give effect to the principle of free collective bargaining.

The Committee had noted the Government’s statement that the Collective Labour Relations Bill, which has been elaborated with the technical assistance of the ILO, is still before the National Assembly and will be forwarded when passed. The Committee expects that the Collective Labour Relations Act will be in full conformity with the requirements of the Convention. It requests the Government to send the new law once adopted.

Lastly, the Committee once again invites the Government to accept an ILO mission in order to tackle the pending issues.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

The Committee notes the observations made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 1 September 2015 concerning an important number of alleged cases of anti-union discrimination and obstruction to collective bargaining in the oil industry. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments thereon.

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments.

The Committee takes note of the observations provided by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication received on 1 September 2014. It requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard.

The Committee notes that the comments on the application of the Convention made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on 31 July 2012, as well as its comments submitted in 2010 and 2011, refer to specific acts of antiunion discrimination including dismissals, transfers and non-union contract clauses in the banking sector, oil and gas sector and education services; anti-union harassment and interference on the part of the employer in the oil and gas and electricity sectors; and anti-union interference on the part of government authorities in the health and education sectors. The Committee further notes the comments submitted by Education International and the Nigeria Union of Teachers (NUT) on 31 August 2012, referring to the lack of any collective bargaining structure for teachers, non-compliance with the collective agreement concluded between the NUT and the Nigeria Governors’ Forum, and acts of antiunion interference through the promotion by the various state governments of an unregistered union, the Academic Staff Union of Secondary Schools. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on the comments above, and invites the Government to submit the issues raised in these comments to a forum of tripartite dialogue and report on its outcome.

In its previous comments, the Committee noted that certain comments submitted by international trade union organizations concerned in particular the fact that: (1) according to the Trade Disputes Act, certain categories of workers are denied the right to organize (such as employees of the Customs and Excise Department, the Immigration Department, the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company Limited, the prison services and the Central Bank of Nigeria) and therefore are deprived of the right to collective bargaining; (2) every agreement on wages must be registered with the Ministry of Labour, which decides whether the agreement becomes binding according to the Wages Board and Industrial Council Acts and to the Trade Dispute Act (it is an offence for an employer to grant a general or percentage increase in wages without the approval of the Minister); (3) section 4(e) of the 1992 Decree on Export Processing Zones states that “employer–employee” disputes are not matters to be handled by trade unions but rather by the authorities managing these zones; and (4) section 3(1) of the same Decree makes it very difficult for workers to form or join trade unions as it is almost impossible for worker representatives to gain free access to the export processing zones (EPZs).

The Committee had noted that the Government had indicated that: with respect to point (1), the Collective Relations Bill has taken care of the mentioned exemptions from the rights to organize and bargain collectively; and as regards points (3) and (4), unionization has commenced, e.g. the Amalgamated Union of Public Corporations, Civil Service, and Technical and Recreational Services Employees has started organizing its members within the EPZ. The Committee takes note of this information.

Concerning point (2), the Committee had previously noted a similar more recent allegation of the ITUC (2009) that private sector collective bargaining rights are restricted by the requirement of government approval for any collective agreements on wages. The Committee notes that the Government had indicated in its report that this practice seeks to ensure that there is no undue economic disruption in a particular industry as there is usually a benchmark agreed to by the relevant employers and trade unions. In this regard, the Committee recalls that legal provisions which make collective agreements subject to the approval of the Ministry of Labour for reasons of economic policy, so that employers’ and workers’ organizations are not able to fix wages freely, are not in conformity with Article 4 of the Convention respecting the promotion and full development of machinery for voluntary collective negotiations. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the relevant provisions are amended to give effect to the principle of free collective bargaining.

The Committee had noted the Government’s statement that the Collective Labour Relations Bill, which has been elaborated with the technical assistance of the ILO, is still before the National Assembly and will be forwarded when passed. The Committee expects that the Collective Labour Relations Act will be in full conformity with the requirements of the Convention. It requests the Government to send the new law once adopted.

Lastly, the Committee once again invites the Government to accept an ILO mission in order to tackle the pending issues.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

The Committee takes note of the observations provided by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication received on 1 September 2014. It requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard.

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments.

The Committee notes that the comments on the application of the Convention made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on 31 July 2012, as well as its comments submitted in 2010 and 2011, refer to specific acts of antiunion discrimination including dismissals, transfers and non-union contract clauses in the banking sector, oil and gas sector and education services; anti-union harassment and interference on the part of the employer in the oil and gas and electricity sectors; and anti-union interference on the part of government authorities in the health and education sectors. The Committee further notes the comments submitted by Education International and the Nigeria Union of Teachers (NUT) on 31 August 2012, referring to the lack of any collective bargaining structure for teachers, non-compliance with the collective agreement concluded between the NUT and the Nigeria Governors’ Forum, and acts of antiunion interference through the promotion by the various state governments of an unregistered union, the Academic Staff Union of Secondary Schools. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on the comments above, and invites the Government to submit the issues raised in these comments to a forum of tripartite dialogue and report on its outcome.

In its previous observations, the Committee noted that certain comments submitted by international trade union organizations concerned in particular the fact that: (1) according to the Trade Disputes Act, certain categories of workers are denied the right to organize (such as employees of the Customs and Excise Department, the Immigration Department, the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company Limited, the prison services and the Central Bank of Nigeria) and therefore are deprived of the right to collective bargaining; (2) every agreement on wages must be registered with the Ministry of Labour, which decides whether the agreement becomes binding according to the Wages Board and Industrial Council Acts and to the Trade Dispute Act (it is an offence for an employer to grant a general or percentage increase in wages without the approval of the Minister); (3) section 4(e) of the 1992 Decree on Export Processing Zones states that “employer–employee” disputes are not matters to be handled by trade unions but rather by the authorities managing these zones; and (4) section 3(1) of the same Decree makes it very difficult for workers to form or join trade unions as it is almost impossible for worker representatives to gain free access to the export processing zones (EPZs).

The Committee had noted that the Government indicates that: with respect to point (1), the Collective Relations Bill has taken care of the mentioned exemptions from the rights to organize and bargain collectively; and as regards points (3) and (4), unionization has commenced, e.g. the Amalgamated Union of Public Corporations, Civil Service, and Technical and Recreational Services Employees has started organizing its members within the EPZ. The Committee takes note of this information.

Concerning point (2), the Committee had previously noted a similar more recent allegation of the ITUC (2009) that private sector collective bargaining rights are restricted by the requirement of government approval for any collective agreements on wages. The Committee notes that the Government had indicated in its report that this practice seeks to ensure that there is no undue economic disruption in a particular industry as there is usually a benchmark agreed to by the relevant employers and trade unions. In this regard, the Committee recalls that legal provisions which make collective agreements subject to the approval of the Ministry of Labour for reasons of economic policy, so that employers’ and workers’ organizations are not able to fix wages freely, are not in conformity with Article 4 of the Convention respecting the promotion and full development of machinery for voluntary collective negotiations. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the relevant provisions are amended to give effect to the principle of free collective bargaining.

The Committee had noted the Government’s statement that the Collective Labour Relations Bill, which has been elaborated with the technical assistance of the ILO, is still before the National Assembly and will be forwarded when passed. The Committee expects that the Collective Labour Relations Act will be in full conformity with the requirements of the Convention. It requests the Government to send the new law once adopted.

Lastly, the Committee once again invites the Government to accept an ILO mission in order to tackle the pending issues.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

The Committee notes that the comments on the application of the Convention made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on 31 July 2012, as well as its comments submitted in 2010 and 2011, refer to specific acts of antiunion discrimination including dismissals, transfers and non-union contract clauses in the banking sector, oil and gas sector and education services; anti-union harassment and interference on the part of the employer in the oil and gas and electricity sectors; and anti-union interference on the part of government authorities in the health and education sectors. The Committee further notes the comments submitted by Education International and the Nigeria Union of Teachers (NUT) on 31 August 2012, referring to the lack of any collective bargaining structure for teachers, non-compliance with the collective agreement concluded between the NUT and the Nigeria Governors’ Forum, and acts of antiunion interference through the promotion by the various state governments of an unregistered union, the Academic Staff Union of Secondary Schools. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on the comments above, and invites the Government to submit the issues raised in these comments to a forum of tripartite dialogue and report on its outcome.

In its previous observations, the Committee noted that certain comments submitted by international trade union organizations concerned in particular the fact that: (1) according to the Trade Disputes Act, certain categories of workers are denied the right to organize (such as employees of the Customs and Excise Department, the Immigration Department, the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company Limited, the prison services and the Central Bank of Nigeria) and therefore are deprived of the right to collective bargaining; (2) only unskilled workers are protected by the Labour Act against anti-union discrimination by their employer; (3) every agreement on wages must be registered with the Ministry of Labour, which decides whether the agreement becomes binding according to the Wages Board and Industrial Council Acts and to the Trade Dispute Act (it is an offence for an employer to grant a general or percentage increase in wages without the approval of the Minister); (4) section 4(e) of the 1992 Decree on Export Processing Zones states that “employer–employee” disputes are not matters to be handled by trade unions but rather by the authorities managing these zones; and (5) section 3(1) of the same Decree makes it very difficult for workers to form or join trade unions as it is almost impossible for worker representatives to gain free access to the export processing zones (EPZs).

The Committee notes that the Government indicates that: with respect to point (1), the Collective Relations Bill has taken care of the mentioned exemptions from the rights to organize and bargain collectively; as regards point (2), both skilled and unskilled workers are protected in practice against anti-union discrimination; and concerning points (4) and (5), unionization has commenced, e.g. the Amalgamated Union of Public Corporations, Civil Service, and Technical and Recreational Services Employees has started organizing its members within the EPZ. The Committee takes note of this information and refers to its comments made under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

Concerning point (3), the Committee had previously noted a similar more recent allegation of the ITUC (2009) that private sector collective bargaining rights are restricted by the requirement of government approval for any collective agreements on wages. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that this practice seeks to ensure that there is no undue economic disruption in a particular industry as there is usually a benchmark agreed to by the relevant employers and trade unions. In this regard, the Committee recalls that legal provisions which make collective agreements subject to the approval of the Ministry of Labour for reasons of economic policy, so that employers’ and workers’ organizations are not able to fix wages freely, are not in conformity with Article 4 of the Convention respecting the promotion and full development of machinery for voluntary collective negotiations. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the relevant provisions are amended to give effect to the principle of free collective bargaining.

The Committee further notes the Government’s statement that the Collective Labour Relations Bill, which has been elaborated with the technical assistance of the ILO, is still before the National Assembly and will be forwarded when passed. The Committee expects that the Collective Labour Relations Act will be in full conformity with the requirements of the Convention. It requests the Government to send the new law once adopted.

Lastly, the Committee once again invites the Government to accept an ILO mission in order to tackle the pending issues.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

The Committee notes the comments of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 4 August 2011 on the application of the Convention, referring in particular to specific acts of anti-union discrimination, in particular dismissals, in the oil sector and in the education services and of anti-union interference on the part of Government authorities in the health and education sectors. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon, as well as on the comments submitted by the ITUC in 2010 which referred to anti-union practices in the oil sector and in financial institutions, including non-union contract clauses.

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

The Committee noted the comments on the application of the Convention made by the ITUC in a communication dated 26 August 2009. The ITUC states that in the private sector collective bargaining rights are restricted by the requirement of government approval: collective agreements on wages must be registered with the Ministry of Labour, which decides whether the agreement becomes binding according to the Wages Board and Industrial Councils Act. The ITUC also refers to acts of anti-union discrimination, including threats of dismissal made to trade unionists in several companies in the banking sector. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations respecting these matters.

The Committee noted the comments submitted by the ITUC in a communication dated 29 August 2008, concerning refusals to negotiate with trade unions, acts of interference by employers, anti-union practices against workers’ representatives, including dismissals. The Committee requests the Government to submit its observations thereon and to reply to the matters raised by the Committee’s previous comment.

Bill on collective labour relations. The Committee noted the Government’s statement, according to which the National Assembly has not yet passed the bill on collective labour relations. The Committee recalls that ILO technical assistance has been provided to the authorities and hopes that the future legislation will be in full conformity with the requirements of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to send the new law once adopted.

Comments made by the Organization of African Trade Union Unity (OATUU) and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) (now ITUC) on the application of the Convention. The Committee notes the comments, which concerned in particular the fact that: (1) certain categories of workers are denied the right to organize (such as employees of the Customs and Excise Department, the Immigration Department, the Nigerian Security Printing and Mining Company Limited, the prison service and the Central Bank of Nigeria) and therefore are deprived of the right to collective bargaining; (2) only unskilled workers are protected by the Labour Act against anti-union discrimination by their employer; (3) every agreement on wages must be registered with the Ministry of Labour, which decides whether the agreement becomes binding according to the Wages Board and Industrial Council Acts according to the Trade Dispute Act (it is an offence for an employer to grant a general or percentage increase in wages without the approval of the Minister); (4) section 4(e) of the 1992 Decree on Export Processing Zones states that “employer–employee” disputes are not matters to be handled by trade unions but rather by the authorities managing these zones; and (5) section 3(1) of the same Decree makes it very difficult for workers to form or join trade unions as it is almost impossible for worker representatives to gain free access to the export processing zones (EPZs). The Committee requests the Government to send its reply on these comments.

Concerning the abovementioned point (1), the Committee observed that the Committee on Freedom of Association had underlined that the functions exercised by employees of customs and excise, immigration, prisons and preventive services should not justify their exclusion from the right to organize on the basis of Article 9 of Convention No. 87 (see 343rd Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, paragraph 1027). The Committee requests the Government to amend section 11 of the Trade Union Act (1973) so that these categories of workers are granted the right to organize and to bargain collectively, as well as for all public employees not engaged in the administration of the State.

The Committee underlines the seriousness of the matters previously raised.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

The Committee requests the Government to accept an ILO mission in order to tackle the pending issues. In the meantime, the Committee urges the Government to conduct an independent investigation into the allegations made by the ITUC in the previous years and to provide information on its outcome.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

The Committee noted the comments on the application of the Convention made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication dated 26 August 2009. The ITUC states that in the private sector collective bargaining rights are restricted by the requirement of government approval: collective agreements on wages must be registered with the Ministry of Labour, which decides whether the agreement becomes binding according to the Wages Board and Industrial Councils Act. The ITUC also refers to acts of anti-union discrimination, including threats of dismissal made to trade unionists in several companies in the banking sector. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations respecting these matters.

The Committee noted the comments submitted by the ITUC in a communication dated 29 August 2008, concerning refusals to negotiate with trade unions, acts of interference by employers, anti-union practices against workers’ representatives, including dismissals. The Committee requests the Government to submit its observations thereon and to reply to the matters raised by the Committee’s previous comment.

Bill on collective labour relations. The Committee noted the Government’s statement, according to which the National Assembly has not yet passed the bill on collective labour relations. The Committee recalls that ILO technical assistance has been provided to the authorities and hopes that the future legislation will be in full conformity with the requirements of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to send the new law once adopted.

Comments made by the Organization of African Trade Union Unity (OATUU) and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) (now International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC)) on the application of the Convention. The Committee notes the comments. The comments concerned in particular the fact that: (1) certain categories of worker are denied the right to organize (such as employees of the Customs and Excise Department, the Immigration Department, the Nigerian Security Printing and Mining Company Limited, the prison service and the Central Bank of Nigeria) and therefore are deprived of the right to collective bargaining; (2) only unskilled workers are protected by the Labour Act against anti-union discrimination by their employer; (3) every agreement on wages must be registered with the Ministry of Labour, which decides whether the agreement becomes binding according to the Wages Board and Industrial Council Acts according to the Trade Dispute Act (it is an offence for an employer to grant a general or percentage increase in wages without the approval of the Minister); (4) section 4(e) of the 1992 Decree on Export Processing Zones states that “employer–employee” disputes are not matters to be handled by trade unions but rather by the authorities managing these zones; and (5) section 3(1) of the same Decree makes it very difficult for workers to form or join trade unions as it is almost impossible for worker representatives to gain free access to the export processing zones (EPZs). The Committee requests the Government to send its reply on these comments.

Concerning the abovementioned point (1), the Committee observed that the Committee on Freedom of Association had underlined that the functions exercised by employees of customs and excise, immigration, prisons and preventive services should not justify their exclusion from the right to organize on the basis of Article 9 of Convention No. 87 (see 343rd Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, paragraph 1027). The Committee requests the Government to amend section 11 of the Trade Union Act (1973) so that these categories of workers are granted the right to organize and to bargain collectively, as well as for all public employees not engaged in the administration of the State.

The Committee underlines the seriousness of the matters previously raised and requests the Government to take measures as a matter of urgency to ensure full respect for the rights enshrined in the Convention.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

Finally, the Committee requests the Government to provide its comments concerning the 2010 observations of the ITUC.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes the comments on the application of the Convention made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication dated 26 August 2009. The ITUC states that in the private sector collective bargaining rights are restricted by the requirement of government approval: collective agreements on wages must be registered with the Ministry of Labour, which decides whether the agreement becomes binding according to the Wages Board and Industrial Councils Act. The ITUC also refers to acts of anti-union discrimination, including threats of dismissal made to trade unionists in several companies in the banking sector. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations respecting these matters.

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation, which read as follows:

The Committee notes the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication dated 29 August 2008, concerning refusals to negotiate with trade unions, acts of interference by employers, anti-union practices against workers’ representatives, including dismissals. The Committee requests the Government to submit its observations thereon and to reply to the matters raised by the Committee’s previous comment.

Bill on collective labour relations. The Committee notes the Government’s statement, according to which the National Assembly has not yet passed the bill on collective labour relations. The Committee recalls that ILO technical assistance has been provided to the authorities and hopes that the future legislation will be in full conformity with the requirements of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to send the new law once adopted.

Comments made by the Organization of African Trade Union Unity (OATUU) and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) on the application of the Convention. The Committee notes the comments made by the OATUU in a communication dated 20 August 2004, as well as the ICFTU, in communications dated 31 August 2005 and 10 August 2006. The comments concern in particular the fact that: (1) certain categories of worker are denied the right to organize (such as employees of the Customs and Excise Department, the Immigration Department, the Nigerian Security Printing and Mining Company Limited, the prison service and the Central Bank of Nigeria) and therefore are deprived of the right to collective bargaining; (2) only unskilled workers are protected by the Labour Act against anti-union discrimination by their employer; (3) every agreement on wages must be registered with the Ministry of Labour, which decides whether the agreement becomes binding according to the Wages Board and Industrial Council Acts according to the Trade Dispute Act (it is an offence for an employer to grant a general or percentage increase in wages without the approval of the Minister); (4) section 4(e) of the 1992 Decree on Export Processing Zones states that “employer–employee” disputes are not matters to be handled by trade unions but rather by the authorities managing these zones; and (5) section 3(1) of the same Decree makes it very difficult for workers to form or join trade unions as it is almost impossible for worker representatives to gain free access to the export processing zones (EPZs). The Committee requests the Government to send its reply on these comments.

Concerning the abovementioned point (1), the Committee observes that the Committee on Freedom of Association has underlined that the functions exercised by employees of customs and excise, immigration, prisons and preventive services should not justify their exclusion from the right to organize on the basis of Article 9 of Convention No. 87 (see 343rd Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, paragraph 1027). The Committee requests the Government to amend section 11 of the Trade Union Act (1973) so that these categories of workers are granted the right to organize and to bargain collectively, as well as for all public employees not engaged in the administration of the State.

The Committee underlines the seriousness of the matters previously raised and requests the Government to take measures as a matter of urgency to ensure full respect for the rights enshrined in the Convention.  

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. The Committee notes the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication dated 29 August 2008, concerning refusals to negotiate with trade unions, acts of interference by employers, anti-union practices against workers’ representatives, including dismissals. The Committee requests the Government to submit its observations thereon and to reply to the matters raised by the Committee’s previous comment which it repeats as follows.

Trade Union (Amendment) Act. In its previous observations, the Committee had commented upon on a section of Decree No. 1 of 1999 which conditioned the provision of check-off facilities upon the insertion of “no strike” and “no lock-out” clauses in relevant collective bargaining agreements. The Committee notes with satisfaction that this provision has been abrogated by the Trade Union (Amendment) Act of 2005. The Committee notes with interest that this new legislation provides that a “membership of a trade union by employees shall be voluntary and no employee shall be forced to join any trade union or be victimized for refusing to join or remain a member”.

Bill on collective labour relations. The Committee notes the Government’s statement, according to which the National Assembly has not yet passed the bill on collective labour relations. The Committee recalls that ILO technical assistance has been provided to the authorities and hopes that the future legislation will be in full conformity with the requirements of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to send the new law once adopted.

Comments made by the Organization of African Trade Union Unity (OATUU) and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) on the application of the Convention. The Committee notes the comments made by the OATUU in a communication dated 20 August 2004, as well as the ICFTU in communications dated 31 August 2005 and 10 August 2006. The comments concern in particular the fact that: (1) certain categories of worker are denied the right to organize (such as employees of the Customs and Excise Department, the Immigration Department, the Nigerian Security Printing and Mining Company Limited, the Prison Service and the Central Bank of Nigeria) and therefore are deprived of the right to collective bargaining; (2) only unskilled workers are protected by the Labour Act against anti-union discrimination by their employer; (3) every agreement on wages must be registered with the Ministry of Labour, which decides whether the agreement becomes binding according to the Wages Board and Industrial Council Acts according to the Trade Dispute Act (it is an offence for an employer to grant a general or percentage increase in wages without the approval of the Minister); (4) article 4(e) of the 1992 Decree on Export Processing Zones states that “employer–employee” disputes are not matters to be handled by trade unions but rather by the authorities managing these zones; and (5) article 3(1) of the same Decree makes it very difficult for workers to form or join trade unions as it is almost impossible for worker representatives to gain free access to the export processing zones (EPZs). The Committee requests the Government to send its reply on these comments.

Concerning the abovementioned point (1), the Committee observes that the Committee on Freedom of Association has underlined that the functions exercised by employees of customs and excise, immigration, prisons and preventive services should not justify their exclusion from the right to organize on the basis of Article 9 of Convention No. 87 (see 343rd Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, paragraph 1027). The Committee requests the Government to amend section 11 of the Trade Union Act (1973) so that these categories of workers are granted the right to organize and to bargain collectively, as well as for all public employees not engaged in the administration of the State.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

1. Trade Union (Amendment) Act. In its previous observations, the Committee had commented upon on a section of Decree No. 1 of 1999 which conditioned the provision of check-off facilities upon the insertion of “no strike” and “no lock-out” clauses in relevant collective bargaining agreements. The Committee notes with satisfaction that this provision has been abrogated by the Trade Union (Amendment) Act of 2005. The Committee notes with interest that this new legislation provides that a “membership of a trade union by employees shall be voluntary and no employee shall be forced to join any trade union or be victimized for refusing to join or remain a member”.

2. Bill on collective labour relations. The Committee notes the Government’s statement according to which the National Assembly has not yet passed the bill on collective labour relations. The Committee recalls that the ILO technical assistance has been provided to the authorities and hopes that the future legislation will be in full conformity with the requirements of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to send the new law once adopted.

3. Comments made by the Organization of African Trade Union Unity (OATUU) and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) on the application of the Convention. The Committee notes the comments made by the OATUU in a communication dated 20 August 2004 as well as the ICFTU in communications dated 31 August 2005 and 10 August 2006. The comments concern in particular the fact that: (1) certain categories of worker are denied the right to organize (such as employees of the Customs and Excise Department, the Immigration Department, the Nigerian Security Printing and Mining Company, the Prison Service and the Central Bank of Nigeria) and therefore are deprived of the right to collective bargaining; (2) only unskilled workers are protected by the Labour Act against anti-union discrimination by their employer; (3) every agreement on wages must be registered with the Ministry of Labour, which decides whether the agreement becomes binding according to the Wages Board and Industrial Council Acts according to the Trade Dispute Act (it is an offence for an employer to grant a general or percentage increase in wages without the approval of the Minister); (4) article 4(e) of the 1992 Decree on Export Processing Zones states that “employer-employee” disputes are not matters to be handled by trade unions but rather by the authorities managing these zones; and (5) article 3(1) of the same Decree makes it very difficult for workers to form or join trade unions as it is almost impossible for worker representatives to gain free access to the export processing zones (EPZs). The Committee requests the Government to send its reply on these comments.

Concerning the abovementioned point (1), the Committee observes that the Committee on Freedom of Association has underlined that the functions exercised by employees of customs and excise, immigration, prisons, and preventive services should not justify their exclusion from the right to organize on the basis of Article 9 of Convention No. 87 (see 343rd Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, paragraph 1027). The Committee requests the Government to amend section 11 of the Trade Union Act (1973) so that these categories of workers are granted the right to organize and to bargain collectively, as well as for all public employees not engaged in the administration of the State.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes the comments on the application of the Convention submitted by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) in a communication of 31 August 2005 and requests the Government to send its observations thereon.

The Committee will examine the questions raised in its 2004 direct request (see direct request 2004, 75th Session) under the regular reporting cycle in 2006.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee takes note of the report submitted by the Government. It also notes the comments made by the Organization of African Trade Union Unity (OATUU) in a communication dated 20 August 2004 concerning the Bill to amend the Trade Unions Act. It requests the Government to send its observation thereon.

In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that section 5(b) of the Trade Union (Amendment) Decree No. 1 of 1999, a legislative provision conditioning check-off payments on the inclusion of "no strike" and "no lockout" clauses in relevant collective bargaining agreements, amounted to undue interference by the authorities with regard to the right of workers’ organizations and employers and their organizations to negotiate freely without government interference, in violation of Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee noted the Government’s statement to the effect that section 5(b) of the Trade Union (Amendment) Decree No. 1 of 1999 would be abrogated during the next review of the labour law.

The Committee notes that in its latest report the Government indicates that the labour review is still under process with ILO technical assistance and the involvement of the social partners through the National Labour Advisory Council.

While taking due note of this information, the Committee requests the Government to transmit a copy of the relevant legislation once adopted and hopes that it will be in full conformity with the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee takes note of the report submitted by the Government.

In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that section 5(b) of the Trade Union (Amendment) Decree No. 1 of 1999, a legislative provision conditioning check-off payments on the inclusion of "no strike" and "no lock-out" clauses in relevant collective bargaining agreements, amounted to undue interference by the authorities with regard to the right of workers’ organizations and employers and their organizations to negotiate freely without government interference, in violation of Article 4 of the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement in its latest report to the effect that section 5(b) of the Trade Union (Amendment) Decree No. 1 of 1999 will be abrogated during the next review of labour laws.

While taking due note of this information, the Committee requests the Government to transmit a copy of the relevant amendment once adopted, and to provide information on its application in practice.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee notes the comments made by the Nigeria Employers’ Consultative Association. It further notes the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in respect of Cases Nos. 1793 and 1935 (see 315th Report, adopted by the Governing Body at its 274th Session, March 1999).

The Committee notes that section 5(b) of the Trade Union (Amendment) Decree No. 1 of 1999 conditions the provisions of check-off facilities with the insertion of "no strike" and "no lock-out" clauses in relevant collective bargaining agreements. The Committee, like the Committee on Freedom of Association, considers that a legislative provision conditioning check-off payments on the inclusion of such clauses in collective agreements constitutes undue interference by the authorities in the right of workers’ organizations and of employers and their organizations to negotiate freely in accordance with Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged to repeal this section of Decree No. 1 so as to ensure that workers’ organizations and employers and their organizations may negotiate freely without government interference.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the Government's report and the comments made by the Nigeria Employers' Consultative Association. It further notes the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in respect of Cases Nos. 1793 and 1935 (see 315th Report, adopted by the Governing Body at its 274th Session, March 1999).

The Committee notes that section 5(b) of the Trade Union (Amendment) Decree No. 1 of 1999 conditions the provisions of check-off facilities with the insertion of "no strike" and "no lock-out" clauses in relevant collective bargaining agreements. The Committee, like the Committee on Freedom of Association, considers that a legislative provision conditioning check-off payments on the inclusion of such clauses in collective agreements constitutes undue interference by the authorities in the right of workers' organizations and of employers and their organizations to negotiate freely in accordance with Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged to repeal this section of Decree No. 1 so as to ensure that workers' organizations and employers and their organizations may negotiate freely without government interference.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes that a Commission of Inquiry was appointed at the 272nd Session of the Governing Body (June 1998) in respect of the non-observance by Nigeria of this Convention, as well as of Convention No. 87. It notes, however, that, at the same session, the Governing Body decided that the commencement of the work of the Commission should be delayed for 60 days in order to allow a direct contacts mission to take place. The Committee takes due note of the report of this direct contacts mission which took place from 17-21 August 1998 and the report of the Officers of the Governing Body to its 273rd Session (November 1998). In particular, it notes the decision of the Governing Body to suspend the work of the Commission of Inquiry and to request the Director-General to transmit the report of the direct contacts mission to this Committee for examination at its November-December 1998 session in connection with the application by Nigeria of the relevant ratified Conventions.

The Committee notes the reference in the direct contacts mission report to the need to consider within the contemplated revision of labour legislation the provisions of Article 4 of the Convention which call for measures to be taken to encourage and promote the full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers' organizations and workers' organizations with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements. The Committee notes from the report of the direct contacts mission that steps have been taken in a positive direction. It requests the Government to keep it informed in future reports of any measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

The Committee takes note of the Government's report on the application of the Convention.

For a number of years, the Committee has been observing that, although certain categories of workers (persons exercising executive, technical and administrative functions, agents and commercial travellers, self-employed workers and persons employed in a vessel or aircraft to which the civil laws apply) are entitled, according to the Government, to associate in occupational organisations or to join trade unions by virtue of the Trade Unions Act, they are not covered by the provisions of the Labour Decree of 1974 (No. 21), concerning the protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination, since section 90 of the same Decree excludes them. It also noted that the Senate Committee on Labour was to examine the situation with a view to amending the legislation on this point.

The Committee notes from the Government's report that the Senate Committee has been replaced by the National Labour Advisory Council, a tripartite body responsible for reviewing all labour laws and that the conclusions of the above Council will be forwarded as soon as the review exercise is completed.

The Committee again recalls that, under Article 1 of the Convention, it is not enough for the above-mentioned categories of workers to enjoy the right to organise; this provision of the Convention implies that specific measures, in particular legislative measures, accompanied by civil remedies and penal sanctions, must be taken to guarantee the protection of workers against any acts of anti-union discrimination, both at the recruitment stage and in the course of employment. The Committee therefore urges the Government to amend its legislation so as to ensure that the above categories of workers excluded from Decree No. 21 of 1974 are granted the protection due to them under this provision of the Convention.