ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Page d'accueil > Profils par pays >  > Commentaires

Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2014, publiée 104ème session CIT (2015)

Convention (n° 98) sur le droit d'organisation et de négociation collective, 1949 - Nigéria (Ratification: 1960)

Autre commentaire sur C098

Demande directe
  1. 2016
  2. 2015
  3. 2014
  4. 2004
  5. 2002
  6. 2001
  7. 1999

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

The Committee takes note of the observations provided by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication received on 1 September 2014. It requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard.
The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments.
The Committee notes that the comments on the application of the Convention made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on 31 July 2012, as well as its comments submitted in 2010 and 2011, refer to specific acts of antiunion discrimination including dismissals, transfers and non-union contract clauses in the banking sector, oil and gas sector and education services; anti-union harassment and interference on the part of the employer in the oil and gas and electricity sectors; and anti-union interference on the part of government authorities in the health and education sectors. The Committee further notes the comments submitted by Education International and the Nigeria Union of Teachers (NUT) on 31 August 2012, referring to the lack of any collective bargaining structure for teachers, non-compliance with the collective agreement concluded between the NUT and the Nigeria Governors’ Forum, and acts of antiunion interference through the promotion by the various state governments of an unregistered union, the Academic Staff Union of Secondary Schools. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on the comments above, and invites the Government to submit the issues raised in these comments to a forum of tripartite dialogue and report on its outcome.
In its previous observations, the Committee noted that certain comments submitted by international trade union organizations concerned in particular the fact that: (1) according to the Trade Disputes Act, certain categories of workers are denied the right to organize (such as employees of the Customs and Excise Department, the Immigration Department, the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company Limited, the prison services and the Central Bank of Nigeria) and therefore are deprived of the right to collective bargaining; (2) every agreement on wages must be registered with the Ministry of Labour, which decides whether the agreement becomes binding according to the Wages Board and Industrial Council Acts and to the Trade Dispute Act (it is an offence for an employer to grant a general or percentage increase in wages without the approval of the Minister); (3) section 4(e) of the 1992 Decree on Export Processing Zones states that “employer–employee” disputes are not matters to be handled by trade unions but rather by the authorities managing these zones; and (4) section 3(1) of the same Decree makes it very difficult for workers to form or join trade unions as it is almost impossible for worker representatives to gain free access to the export processing zones (EPZs).
The Committee had noted that the Government indicates that: with respect to point (1), the Collective Relations Bill has taken care of the mentioned exemptions from the rights to organize and bargain collectively; and as regards points (3) and (4), unionization has commenced, e.g. the Amalgamated Union of Public Corporations, Civil Service, and Technical and Recreational Services Employees has started organizing its members within the EPZ. The Committee takes note of this information.
Concerning point (2), the Committee had previously noted a similar more recent allegation of the ITUC (2009) that private sector collective bargaining rights are restricted by the requirement of government approval for any collective agreements on wages. The Committee notes that the Government had indicated in its report that this practice seeks to ensure that there is no undue economic disruption in a particular industry as there is usually a benchmark agreed to by the relevant employers and trade unions. In this regard, the Committee recalls that legal provisions which make collective agreements subject to the approval of the Ministry of Labour for reasons of economic policy, so that employers’ and workers’ organizations are not able to fix wages freely, are not in conformity with Article 4 of the Convention respecting the promotion and full development of machinery for voluntary collective negotiations. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the relevant provisions are amended to give effect to the principle of free collective bargaining.
The Committee had noted the Government’s statement that the Collective Labour Relations Bill, which has been elaborated with the technical assistance of the ILO, is still before the National Assembly and will be forwarded when passed. The Committee expects that the Collective Labour Relations Act will be in full conformity with the requirements of the Convention. It requests the Government to send the new law once adopted.
Lastly, the Committee once again invites the Government to accept an ILO mission in order to tackle the pending issues.
© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer