The National Industrial Court of Nigeria, sitting in Lagos, has declared the termination of Mrs. Rose Inenemoh Unuigbe’s employment by Union Bank of Nigeria wrongful, holding that the bank failed to comply with the terms of her contract and applicable international labour standards.
Delivering judgment at the Lagos Judicial Division, Hon. Justice Rabiu Gwandu ruled that the bank did not prove it paid Mrs. Unuigbe her salary in lieu of notice, as stipulated in her contract of employment.
The court further held that the termination, which the bank justified on the grounds that her services were no longer required, did not satisfy the conditions set out in the employment agreement and Article 7 of the International Labour Organization Termination of Employment Convention. Justice Gwandu stated that, under prevailing international labour standards, an employer must provide a valid reason for terminating an employee’s appointment.
In his judgment, Justice Gwandu explained that Mrs. Unuigbe’scontract permitted either party to terminate the employment upon giving proper notice or payment in lieu of notice. However, he held that the bank failed to present credible evidence that such payment had been made.
Mrs. Unuigbe told the court that an earlier allegation levelled against her had been resolved in her favour and ought not to have been relied upon to terminate her employment. She argued that the bank acted in bad faith and in breach of her conditions of service. She therefore sought gratuity arrears, a refund of deductions, damages, and other monetary reliefs.
She also contended that terminating her employment on the basis that her services were no longer required contravened her contract of employment, the applicable collective agreement, and the 1982 ILO Convention on termination of employment.
In its defence, Union Bank of Nigeria maintained that the termination was valid under the contract of employment. The bank denied liability for the claims and urged the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety, arguing that it acted in accordance with the contract of service and established decisions of the Supreme Court.
In what he described as a well-considered judgment, Justice Gwandu reiterated that, although an employer retains the common-law right to terminate employment, such termination must be supported by a reason consistent with relevant international conventions and treaties.
The judge further reasoned that where the bank had accused Mrs. Unuigbe, reported her to the police, and charged her before a competent court, and she was subsequently found not guilty, it could not lawfully terminate her employment without providing a reason upon her resumption of duty.
Accordingly, the court held that Union Bank of Nigeria failed to comply with the terms of Mrs. Unuigbe’s contract and applicable international best practices.
On the issue of redundancy, Justice Gwandu ruled that Mrs. Unuigbe failed to establish that her position had been declared redundant. Her claims relating to redundancy and the 150 per cent exit package were therefore refused.
However, the court found that Mrs. Unuigbe had been underpaid and that the bank owed her gratuity arrears of ₦14.4 million, less ₦5.9 million already paid. The court ordered the bank to settle the outstanding balance.
The court also examined deductions of ₦39,963 for unearned housing allowance and ₦99,555 for loan repayment. Justice Gwandu held that the bank failed to justify the deductions with credible evidence, declared them unlawful, and directed that the sums be refunded.
Consequently, the court ordered Union Bank of Nigeria to pay Mrs. Unuigbe one month’s salary in lieu of notice, the outstanding gratuity arrears, and the refunded deductions.
