ILO Standards and the Nigerian Law of Unfair Dismissal
Published date | 01 September 2009 |
Pages | 181-212 |
DOI | 10.3366/E0954889009000371 |
Date | 01 September 2009 |
Author | Joseph E. O. Abugu |
The work force of any nation constitutes a significant part of its population whose contribution is central to national growth. An active work force is an index of a growing economy. Consequently while free enterprise is being encouraged, many nations take effective measures to protect employees in their jobs.
The beginning of any employment relation is the embodiment of the terms and conditions of the relationship in a form communicable between the parties. Though a contract of employment may be entered into by implication, the Nigerian Labour Act Cap. 21 1974; retained as Cap.198 Laws of the Federation 1990. Section 7[1], Labour Act.
Generally, dismissal denotes any action on the part of an employer that brings an employment relationship to an end whether or not it is in accordance with the terms of the contract. However, it is suggested herein, that for a better understanding of terminologies, a clear distinction needs to be drawn between dismissal and termination. Often, dismissal is confused with ‘termination’. The latter simply refers to the cessation of a contract of employment, usually, in accordance with its terms. Dismissal on the other hand, is the assertion of a right of an employer to terminate a contract other than in accordance with the expressed terms. The distinction centres on whether an employment has been determined in accordance with its terms or not. This is a common feature of most disputes on termination; hence, it can be a veritable source of confusion whether to use the term, ‘termination’ or ‘dismissal’.
In the past two decades, with a growing private sector, the relationship between employers and employees continues to be a turbulent one and a source of unending litigation in Nigeria. Government, at federal and state levels, constitutes the biggest employer and have woven intricate rules of civil service regulations on tenure and pensions. The International Labour Organisation, an agency of the United Nations is dedicated towards prescription of labour standards and recommending actions for member states. It was established at the end of World War I, at the Peace Conference which first convened in Paris and later at Versailles. The ILO constitutes Part XIII of the Treaty signed on 28 June 1919. See the Preamble to the Constitution of the ILO and the Declaration Concerning the Aims and Objectives of the Organisation adopted by the Conference in Philadelphia in 1944 and incorporated in the ILO Constitution in 1946.
This paper is an effort to present and explore deficiencies in the Nigerian law in comparison with ILO prescriptions on termination of employment and thereby indicate avenues of law reform in consonance with ILO Standards and developments in other jurisdictions.
Dismissal usually connotes the exercise by an employer of a right to terminate a contract of employment on account of some misconduct on the part of the employee. To underscore the use of this term, it is sometimes aptly called ‘summary dismissal’. Thus an employee whose contract was terminated by notice in accordance with his contract of employment is ‘not dismissed’ nor is one who has merely resigned his appointment.
See, contra, Osborn's
Outside these situations where a summary dismissal is justifiable at common law, the boundaries of what constitutes unfair dismissal are blurred.
‘Unfair dismissal’ may refer to conduct that is ‘socially unwarranted’ or ‘not for real and serious reasons’ or ‘not for objectively valid grounds’. See J. Stieber, ‘Protection against Unfair Dismissal: A Comparative Review’, 3
[1994] 8 N.W.L.R (Pt 363) 376.
The nature of a contract of employment as between employer and employee has been known to belong to different categories. There is the office held at pleasure. This has lost meaning in present-day Nigeria, particularly since the 1963 Re-publican Constitution, reinforced by the 1979 Constitution. Office at pleasure is now namely a feature of servants of the Crown in England. The continued existence in office at pleasure by any servant, as it implies is at the pleasure of the employer. There is no remedy against removal from such office and no grievance can be entertained by the courts.
Here is another category, which is subject to statutory regulation or condition. An employee falling under this cannot be removed unless the conditions are strictly complied with coupled with the observance of the rules of natural justice and for cause shown. Non-compliance makes such removal null and void. In appropriate cases, re-instatement to the office or employment follows. There is a third category where the contracts if for a definite period and backed by the constitution, e.g. office of the Public Service Commission. The holder can only be removed for cause shown by the appropriate authority; otherwise, full compensation for the unexpired period is usually the remedy. Finally, there is the ordinary master and servant relationship.
Emphasis mine.
The emphasised portion of the above dicta confirms the pitiable state of insecurity of employment in ordinary employment relationships in Nigeria. Under the common law, where a contract of service gives a party a right of termination of the contract by either giving a particular length of notice or mere reasonable notice and the right is exercised without the requisite notice, the party seeking to put an end to the contract must pay to the other party the salary in lieu of notice. If the employer gives notice of the length which the contract requires or a minimum statutory notice which the law requires, then the contract is lawfully terminated
To continue reading
Request your trial