Does Labour Bill Meet ILO Conventions?
The Executive Labour Bill before the National Assembly, according to President Olusegun Obasanjo is intend to conform it with International Labour Organisation (ILO) Conventions. Can this assertion be justified in the face of many of the provisions of the bill that seems to restrict workers' right, asks Chris Nwachuku
Section 40 of Nigeria's Constitution guarantees every ctizen, Nigeria's labour practice regardless of social status the right to freedom of association, including the right to belong to the labour movement of choice. This provision also aligns with the core conventions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), especially Convention 87 on freedom of association.
These provisions are predicated on creating an efficient and responsive trade unions and associations that would act as a catalyst for national development.
Until the labour bill was introduced to the parliament, not a few believe that the existing laws governing work ethics, relationship among social partners in the world of work and the inalienable right to join unions were deficient.
It therefore became imperative that in a democracy, compliance with core ILO Conventions and relevant provision of the Nigerian Constitution on the right to peaceful assembly and association, especially as stipulated by Section 40, dictate that the existing labour laws must be made dynamic.
Labour, as some experts noted, must subscribe to this. It should contend also with the inevitable and imminent review of the labour laws which rest on their organisational viability, the protection of the workers, determining their working condition as well as addressing and resolving disputes.
Ironically, recent attempts to review Nigeria's existing labour laws heve been criticised for lacking necessary instruments that would enhance work place operations. Government have repeatedly threatened to review labour laws in response to industrial crises. This was visible in early 2004 when labour threatened to shut down the nation in protest against hike in prices of petroleum products. The dispute was temporarily resolved by the court of law, but not until tension and fear had enveloped the nation. Expectedly, government could not forge ahead with the planned review as a result of public outcry against the move which was seen by many as punitive and selective.
One is wont to then ask if the renewed attempt, which again has met stiff public resistance, intended to make labour move responsive and independence?
According to President Olusegun Obasanjo, in a letter to National Assembly, the bill is intended "to promote the democratisation of labour, further strengthen it, enhance choice for all Nigerian workers in the true spirit of the constitution, comply with ILO requirements concerning democratisation in the organisation of labour unions and centres and consolidate the value of accountability and participation."
How true is this assertion in the light of the provisions in the bill? At a glance, it appears to achieve this. First, the law makes membership voluntary. The imposition of NLC on some segment of workers is to be withdrawn. With the monopoly of NLC, as the sole central labour organisation in the the country, broken, as many trade union federation is free to spring up.
However, the existence of such federation is subject to the approval of one man, the Labour and Productivity Minister. He is to have power to determine and approve federations unions should join.
Section 5 (1) states "notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) (a) of this section, the minister in his discretion may approve that members of two or more trade unions whose members are not employed in the same trade, occupation or industry, or in substantially similar trades, occupations or industries, form a registration of federation of trade unions if it is in the public interest so to do."
It must be noted tht this provision is in line with the ILO Convention but the question many seem to ask is who defines what constitutes "public interest?" is it government officials who may not want workers to cry out even amid painful suppression or the greater Nigerian public who already feel cheated by government policies and actions? Or is it the National Assembly?
Other salient issues in the bill include removal in its entirety automatic check off dues. In most countries of the world, this is the practice. Above all, the bill provides a no strike clause, which most accompany the formation of any labour centre and even the implementation of check off dues, when the worker gives its authorisation.
"Subject to the express consent of a worker who is eligible and willing to be a member of any trade union, make deduction from the wages of such worker for the purpose of paying contributions to the trade union so registered; and pay any sum so deducted directly to the registered office of the trade union, provided that compliance with the provisions of this section of this act shall be subject to the insertion of a "No Strike Clause" in the relevant collective bargaining agreement between the workers and their employers," according to Section 3 (a and b) of the bill.
Strike is a weapon in industrial relations which recognised by ILO. Workers are expected to deploy it as a protest instruments. Similarly, employers have the right to lockouts. On what bases therefore would Federal Government ban workers from going on strike if employers still have the power of lockout? What aspect of ILO Conventions is government enforcing in outlawing strike? Apart from countries where dictators reign no democratic nation has attempted to deny workers their right to strike? In as much as the ILO recognises that a country may have more than one central labour organisaiton, it condemns in its entirety the denial of workers in whatever form, the right to strike. It does not recognise a "No Strike Clause" in any agreement.
In the face of government's refusal to engage workers in constructive dialogue, what option is left for labour? For instance, until the last strike threat, government literarily abandoned NLC's quest for dialogue on the new price regime for petroleum products. Human resources experts believe that a no strike clause may be too dangerous for the country as it would breed unmitigated violence as has been seen from past experience.
Again, does the provisions in the bill address substantially the issue of voluntary membership, that is, the right to form and belong. While it reaffirmed workers right to belong, the bill is defective on the formation process.
A closer look at the bill reveal also that virtually every provision of the draft bill with the exception of voluntary check off and break of NLC monopoly violates the core ILO Conventions and Section 40 of Nigerian Constitution.
ILO Convention 144 on Tripartism provides that there should exist a tripartite committee involving the three social partners in the industrial relations clime; government represented by Labour Ministry, employers in the private sector and organised labour; to review labour laws and labour-related policies. This committee, which is known as the National Labour Advisory Council (NLAC) is also expected to make recommendations to government before enactment of any labour laws. Nigeria as a signatory to the convention and is therefore bound by the letter and spirit of the convention.
In the draft Bill that has been presented to the National Assembly, organised labour was never consulted, neither was it sent to it for suggestions or contributions before it was sent to the National Assembly. This is a breach of ILO Convention. The very procedure adopted by President Olusegun Obasanjo, the secrecy and circumstances surrounding the emergence of the bill which completely disregarded the existence of NLAC largely suggest that government's intention was not to domesticate or realign labour laws with the provision of core ILO Conventions and Section 40 of the Constitution.
For example, the bill did not, in furtherance of ILO Convention and Section 40, restore the right of workers in Custom Service, Central Bank of Nigeria, Police, Immigration among others to belong to unions unlike in other countries.
The draft bill only reflect a situation in which government appeared to be ignorant and or decides to deliberately ignore actions in which it is a part of. For instance, the government is aware that NLAC with technical assistance from ILO is currently carrying out a comprehensive review of trade union and labour-related laws, with a view to ensuring that they conform with core ILO Conventions and Section 40 of the Nigerian Constitution.
That government again ignore these experts, who are not only objective but would be more neutral in the review approach again explains the intentions and what the State seeks to achieve with the executive bill. Why the haste, when experts have already been gathered?
Labour has challenged some of the assertion of government that existing labour laws only tend to be labour friendly in its surface, but clearly subvert labour independence and sustained viability.
Now in "deregulating" and democratising labour, is government aiming to destroy or outlaw the NLC. An official of ILO faulted this approach. He told THISDAY that what is important is the provision of an enabling law. Once that is done, it is left for the affiliate unions to either remain in NLC or withdraw.
There appear to be some sense in this. In 1999, only three out of about 13 political parties met registration guidelines and got official nod. This registration contradicted the constitution. However, the moment the Supreme Court voided the Act and widen the political landscape, the existing parties retained their structures, yet some members left to form new ones. Why should NLC not be allowed to live?
The bill allowed for two or more unions to form a federation. For a country with 29 unions and 18 senior staff association, Nigeria may theoretically have over ten labour centres and during crises, can government manage this large number? This argument may not hold waters but it could be considered.
The minister has the discretion to decide on which of the federations to register. This maybe contrary to the spirit of voluntarism and freedom of association. As Issa Aremu, Textile Workers General Secretary said "what is the business of the Minister of Labour with unions which he does not form or contribute to? Trade union is an association of workers. Not even colonial authorities sought to register unions. You cannot be claiming to promote union democracy when in 2004 Nigeria, you accord registration of unions to Minister of Labour."
A similar bill was sent after the October NLC strike of last year. That draft was either withdrawn or become irrelevant in the light of hostile public opinion. The present bill sent on the eve of 9th of June nationwide strike suggest the punitive intention of the government which is aimed at dissolving the NLC which would be the conclusion of October broadcast of the President.
The fate of the present draft bill cannot be predicted while its consequence on trade unions, particularly on the existence of the NLC cannot be determined. What is however certain is that historically, Nigerian trade unions do exercise courage in defending their existence in the face of hostile government imposed circumstances.
For instance, in 1975, when the same Obasanjo government thought that the retirement of some renown labour leaders will afford government the opportunity to hijack labour leadership and subordinate labour to its whim and caprices, the progressive arm of the movement entered into coalition with their erstwhile rival to ensure that government does not succeed in imposing leadership.
In 1988, when the IBB regime overtly masterminded the split of labour within the contest of progressive and democrats, in order to moderate labour opposition to SAP, labour leadership resolved their differences, abandon the government and produced a common leadership.
The Abacha period and its anti-labour laws succeeded in attracting to its side majority of labour leaders. The intention then was that a pro-Abacha labour movement will emerge and provide support for the regime's carefully marked out political plan to transform itself into a civilian leadership. In that difficult circumstance, about six labour leaders went underground and subverted every attempt of that government.
This clearly shows the resilience of labour leadership in Nigeria to thwart any attempt to undermine its existence. But this would largely depend on whether the industrial unions in the country would speak with one voice. It should also be noted that presently the senior staff associations have formed an umbrella body. But would they join NLC? Whatever happens, government should ensure objectivity and sincerity in the interest of the Nigerian workers.
|
