Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1991, Publication: 78th ILC session (1991)

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Nigeria (Ratification: 1960)

A Government representative stated, with reference to the first point raised by the Experts concerning a single central trade union established by law under which certain registered unions were affiliated to the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC), that the four central labour organisations had of their own volition decided to merge to form the NLC and, by virtue of the Trade Union Decree of 1978, his Government had merely formalised the organisation which the workers had established themselves. The NLC was currently restructuring itself, from its present 41 industrial unions, to 22 industrial unions and he stressed that the Government had no hand in the present restructuring exercise. He believed that the Workers' member of Nigeria present in the present Committee was in a better position to speak on that particular issue.

Secondly, regarding the denial of trade union rights of certain categories of workers, he pointed out that in the local conditions this was based on the security nature of the services which the affected workers were providing: they were employed in services strategic to the Nigerian economy. In any event, he gave the assurance that this aspect of the labour legislation was currently under review by the National Labour Advisory Council.

Thirdly, regarding the broad powers of the Registrar to supervise the accounts of trade unions, he stated that the law merely requested the unions to submit their audited accounts to the Registrar once a year. By means of the compulsory check-off system, the law empowered employers to deduct union dues from workers' wages at the source; these deducted amounts were paid into the accounts of the appropriate union. Therefore, the Registrar did not look into the details of how the money was spent because the accounts had to be audited by qualified registered accountants. The measure was merely to ensure that trade union accounts were in fact audited. The Registrar had the duty to remind unions to submit their accounts to auditors of their choice if they did not do so of their own vollition. The speaker noted, however, that any worker who so wished could opt out of the compulsory check-off system by informing his employer in writing.

Fourthly, on the question of strikes, he noted that there was a procedure laid down by law which unions had to follow if they intended to take strike action. For example, if the relevant collective agreement had provisions for the settlement of disputes, they should be exhausted, failing which this fact should be communicated to the Minister of Employment, Labour and Productivity who referred the dispute to an arbitrator, conciliator or industrial arbitration panel. If the dispute could still not be resolved, it was referred to the industrial courts. In spite of all these procedures, workers still went on strike in Nigeria; but the Government believed there was always a way of reaching agreement with trade union leaders through consultation, conciliation, arbitration, persuasion or adjudication.

Finally, referring to Decree No. 35 of 1989 which prohibited international affiliation of trade unions and directed the central trade union, industrial unions and employers' associations to cease any existing international affiliation inconsistent with the provisions of the Decree, he was pleased to inform the Committee that his Government had decided to repeal this law. The Attorney-General was currently processing the publication of the legal instrument of repeal which would, he expected, be released in due course.

The Workers' members noted that the comments made by the Committee of Experts were not new and had been raised for many years. It was clear that these were very important issues concerning the application of the Convention: the single trade union system; non-recognition of the trade union rights of certain categories of workers; the broad powers of the Registrar to supervise union accounts; and restrictions on the right to strike. Although it had been noted that, since 1989, the National Labour Advisory Council had been examining how to adapt the legislation to bring it into conformity with the Convention, it was surprising to read in the observation that while this very examination was going on, Decree No. 35 of 1989 and other completely contradictory measures had been adopted. Regarding this ban on any international affiliation, the Government representative had stated that this Decree would be abrogated; as soon as this was officially done, the Government should inform the ILO so that this point could be examined. As for the other points raised by the Committee of Experts, they believed that the Government had to be urged to accelerate matters so as to bring the legislation into full conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

The Employers' members agreed that these questions had been discussed for many years, at least three times in the last decade in the present Committee. They supported all the points that had been mentioned: the single trade union system; denial of the right to organise for certain workers; and the considerable interference in financial matters. With the exception of the restriction on strike action, they shared the view that there had been a clear violation of the Convention in this particular case. They wanted to hear the Workers' member of Nigeria on the question of the single trade union system, although they were sure that he would defend it. It was, however, a question of what the Convention provided, namely that there should be the possibility for the setting up of free unions and that this should not be restricted by law. This was obviously a problem in the present case. The 1989 Decree made the situation even more acute. Its repeal, as announced by the Government representative, would not resolve the other problems. They therefore believed that the present Committee should insist on a change in the legal situation in the very near future and that the case should be taken up once again very soon. They suggested that the conclusions should reflect the present Committee's reservation of the right to take steps if changes did not occur very rapidly.

The Workers' member of Nigeria stressed that, before the Trade Unions Decree No. 22 of 1987, there had been 1,500 trade unions in Nigeria which had been exploited by employers who, at one time or another, encouraged the unions to fight amongst themselves using"divide and rule" tactics. The workers had therefore believed that it was better to merge these unions, instead of allowing them to be exploited by various employers. A 1975 conference decided on such a merger and, in 1978, they requested legislation to recognise the one central labour organisation and the merging of 1,500 trade unions into 41 industrial unions. He believed this was good for the workers, good for the trade unions and good for the country. He thus asked the ILO to endorse this kind of arrangement. He added that, after almost three years of debate, a decision had been democratically taken to reduce the now 41 industrial unions to 22. This decision had been submitted to both the Federal Government and the employers in the tripartite national body which endorsed such arrangements through legislation. Such a legislative endorsement was necessary, otherwise there would be problems in negotiations with employers. Regarding the non-recognition of the right to organise of certain categories of workers (in the Mint, the Central Bank, external telecommunications and the customs and excise service), he believed that this was a gross violation of the Convention. The workers would continue to put pressure on the Government to see that workers in all these establishments would be allowed to unionise. He did not accept the Government's argument concerning customs and excise workers, according to which they could not organise in trade unions because they carried arms. The nature of their work entitled them to carry arms, but they were not members of the armed forces. As regarded the ban on international affiliation, his organisation had taken the matter up with the Government and the Government had agreed to repeal Decree No. 35. This was because the workers believed that if employers in Nigeria were allowed to affiliate to their counterparts throughout the world, there was no reason why workers should be discriminated against in affiliating with their colleagues in other parts of the world. But he was satisfied that the Government was taking the practical steps to have the Decree repealed.

The Government representative requested clarification from the Employers' members concerning their statement on strikes in essential services. Referring to the Workers' member of Nigeria, the speaker pointed out that, to the best of his knowledge, the documents concerning the restructuring of the NLC's affiliates into 22 industrial unions had not yet reached the Ministry in Lagos. Despite that, he was sure that the Government would agree to register the 22 industrial unions involved, because the restructuring had been done of the workers' own volition and the Government had no right to question such exercises. He thus assured the Nigerian Workers' member that the Government would not go against the NLC's wishes. On the question of the right to organise of customs workers and other workers in sensitive areas, his Government believed that a certain degree of caution should be taken in allowing persons carrying arms to unionise. He stressed that his Government was not trying to shy away from the Conventions it had ratified; it believed strongly in those Conventions and wanted to implement their provisions to the letter. However, situations in other parts of the world had to be considered. Lastly, he repeated that the Government was in the process of having Decree No. 35 repealed, but noted that it took time to respect all the procedures that had to be undertaken, including reference from the Ministry of Labour to the Ministry of Justice. He hoped that before the next session of the Conference the Decree would be repealed.

The Workers' member of Nigeria pointed out that the documents concerning the restructuring of the trade union movement had been forwarded to the Government. On the question of adaptability to local conditions in which the customs and excise workers were employed, he believed there was nothing in Nigeria to prohibit the strict observance of the Convention. The reason for them carrying arms was well-known: there were many smugglers crossing the boarders carrying arms, and customs and immigration staff needed to be equipped in order to be able to do their work properly.

The Employers' members explained their reservation in reply to the Government representative's query: they felt that the Convention could be used as a basis from which to derive the right to strike, but believed that the limits on this right were not indicated expressly therein and that the Experts' views on limiting strikes only in essential services in the strict sense of the term could not be read from the Convention. This was because the wording did not so state and because the Convention had to be interpreted, like all international treaties, in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

The Committee noted the report of the Committee of Experts and the oral information provided by the Government representative. It expressed its concern at the fact that the Government did not seem to have made any progress towards bringing its law and practice into conformity with the requirements of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention concerning, in particular, the single trade union system established in the legislation, the non-recognition of the right to organise of certain categories of workers, and restrictions on the activities of trade unions. The Committee recalled the persistance of these various discrepancies for many years. In addition, it noted with concern that Decree No. 35 of 1989 constituted a serious violation of the right of workers' and employers' organisations to affiliate with the international organisations of their choice, as guaranteed in Article 5 of the Convention. It expressed the firm hope that the Government would take in a very short time the necessary steps to ensure full application of the Convention and, in particular, that it would abrogate Decree No. 35 in the near future as it had promised to do on several occasions and that it would communicate the repealing text to the ILO as soon as it was adopted. If it was the case that the situation did not evolve favourably in the near future, the Committee would have to consider other action or comments if this were not the case.