The National Industrial Court (NIJ), Lagos Division has ordered Zenith Bank to pay severance packages to 102 former employees of the bank that were laid off sometimes in 2011.
The court presided over by Justice Mustapha Tijani gave the order while delivering judgement in suit number NIC/LA/124/2011 filed by Peter Ogbolu, Charles Chukwu, Mangey Bitrus Bulus, Adeniran Adebisi and Abdullahi Olayiwola Alfa suing for themselves and on behalf of 97 others against Zenith bank, Zenith Securities and People Plus Management Service Limited over unfair labour practice.
The aggrieved staff also sought an order of the court compelling the first and second respondents (Zenith Bank and Zenith Securities) to reinstate them immediately or in the alternative pay N10 million to each of them as compensation for the alleged unfair labour practice.
Justice Tijani in his judgement held that it was not in dispute that the second defendant (Zenith Securities) is a subsidiary of the first defendant (Zenith bank) adding that the first defendant admitted that the second defendant seconded all the claimants to it.
The judge noted that the defendants did not tender before the court, the agreements they signed between them and the claimants.
The court held ‘’ all these in my humble view go to show that defendants are working in concert to concede the identity of the claimants’ real employer. In other words, this is a case of disguised employment relationship’’.
The court held that Zenith bank being the parent company of the second and third defendants who employed the claimants and seconded them to the first defendant for all intent and purposes are co-employer of the claimants.
‘’The first defendants are co-employers of the claimants. It follows therefore that although the three companies are separate and distinct from one another under the corporate law, they are in my humble view the co-employers of the claimants coin this case, I so hold’’, the court stated.
On whether the transfer of the employment by the second defendant to the third defendant is valid, the court held that having determined that the defendant are co-employers of the claimants, the matter has become an academic exercise.
On whether the disengagement of the claimants by the third defendant is proper and valid, the court held that having treated the defendants as one entity, any of the defendants can validly terminate claimants’ employment, provided the procedure for contract, employment is followed.
On whether the disengagement of the claimants was on the ground of redundancy and whether the claimants are entitled to redundancy benefits, Justice Tijani held that there was no evidence before the court that the claimants belong to either the Association of Senior Staff of Banks, Insurance & Financial Institutions (ASASSBIFI) or the National Union of Banks Insurance and Financial Institution Employees (NUBIFIE).
Consequently, the court held that there was no evidence before the court to suggest that the claimants’ employment was terminated on grounds of redundancy adding that the claimants failed to prove that they are members of bankers’ associations to enable them enjoy redundancy benefit.
‘’There is nothing to show that they are members of the junior staff association. I find that the claimants’ employment was not determined on the ground of redundancy. I also find that the claimants having failed to establish their membership of the bankers’ associations’’, the court added.
On whether the claimants are entitled to compensation for the alleged unfair Labour practice, the court held the claimants failed to prove or present material to support the allegation of unfair Labour practice.
‘’I find that the claimants have failed to prove unfair labour practices against the defendants. However, I hold that the claimants are entitled to be paid severance package in line with the first defendant handbook’’.
The claimants had in their statement of claim averred that they were paid by Zenith bank (1st defendant) and were issued payslip by the bank and that they have worked in the employment of the defendants between five to ten years.
Besides, they alleged that contrary to the best labour practice as implemented to other categories of employees within the industry they were never promoted nor given the opportunity to progress on the job.
The claimants added that when they decided to agitate for a fair labour practice devoid of discrimination, the 3rd respondent (People plus Management Service) allegedly terminated their appointments without notice and on the ground of restructuring.
The claimants averred that rather than being disengaged on the ground of redundancy and be paid redundancy benefit in line with term and condition of service, the respondents allegedly terminated their employment through the incorporation and the help of the 3rd respondent.
They are asking the court for a declaration that their disengagement by the 3rd respondent was illegal, invalid, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
The claimants are also seeking a declaration that the purported transfer of the employment to the services of People plus Management Service was done under duress and without their consent.
