The National Industrial Court ruled on Tuesday that the Federal Government’s “no work, no pay” stance against the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) is legal.
In his decision, Justice Benedict Kanyip declared that ASUU was not entitled to pay during the strike period.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that ASUU members who participated in the eight-month strike were not entitled to pay under section 43(1a) of the Trade Disputes Act (TDA).
Although employers and workers can enter an agreement, for which the workers will be paid during the period of a strike action, when such agreement was not made, no worker is expected to get paid.
Kanyip stated that the claimants in the suit, the federal government and the Minister of Education, were incorrect in asking the court to impose sanctions on ASUU for going on a peaceful strike.
The judge described it as a flagrant violation of their right to freedom of association under International Labour Organisation (ILO) jurisprudence.
There is nothing before the court to prove that ASUU was not peaceful during the strike
No employee should be victimised or sanctioned for embarking on peaceful strike, the court ruled.
The court also ruled that the claimants could not compel ASUU to accept salary payments through the Integrated Personnel and Payroll Information System (IPPIS) as long as they agreed to their budgetary allocation.
The court clarified that, due to the university’s autonomy, the claimant’s submission that ASUU’s payment platform system failed the NITDA integrity test was mere hearsay.
The court also ruled that, in accordance with Section 18 of the TDA, no employer shall engage in lockout and no worker shall engage in industrial action when a trade dispute has been identified and a reconciliation process is underway.
Section 43(2) of the trade dispute act, which gives sole powers to the Minister to determine if there has been a lockout by an employer, falls contrary to section 6 of 1999 constitution as amended.
The determination of a lockout is for the court to decide and not for the executive arm of the government
Kanyip concluded that, with regard to the declaration one sought by the claimants, the court ruled that, because the strike had been called off on the same court’s order, it would not go beyond the presiding judge’s ruling.
Claimants in the suit had taken ASUU to court to have the substantive suit decided during ASUU’s eight-month strike in 2022.
The claimants also sought interpretation and application of some TDA, which was expressed in six questions, six reliefs, and six determinations.
