The National Industrial Court in Yenagoa has declared unlawful the decision by Pyrammidt Company to reduce a worker’s monthly salary from ₦45,000 to ₦20,000. The court ordered the firm to pay ₦225,000 in unpaid salary deductions and ₦2 million in damages for wrongful termination.
Delivering judgment at the Yenagoa Judicial Division, the Presiding Judge, Hon. Justice Polycarp Hamman, held that the company failed to prove that Mrs. Rita Esisorigho had agreed to the salary reduction or that her pay was linked to the value of the company’s contract with its client. The court ordered the payments to be made within 30 days.
According to court documents, Mrs. Esisorigho said she was employed by Pyrammidt Company as a cleaner and deployed to another company, where she earned a monthly salary of ₦45,000.
She told the court that the company, in August 2014, unilaterally reduced her salary from ₦45,000 to ₦20,000 without her consent or any prior agreement, while withholding the ₦25,000 balance every month.
Esisorigho further stated that the company stopped paying her salary between January and April 2015. Although she later received payment for that period at the reduced ₦20,000 rate, she said the unpaid ₦25,000 monthly balance remained outstanding, amounting to ₦225,000.
Defending its actions, Pyrammidt Company argued that the salary reduction followed a drop in invoice payments from its client. The company claimed that staff members, including Mrs. Esisorigho, agreed during an August 2014 meeting to accept lower salaries rather than face job losses. It added that work schedules were also adjusted to two weeks on and two weeks off.
The company also maintained that Esisorigho was not dismissed but had voluntarily stopped reporting for work after the salary adjustment, insisting that she was not entitled to further claims.
However, counsel for the claimant, O. P. Utobijohwo Esq., opposed the company’s position, arguing that his client never consented to the salary cut. He told the court that the document presented as evidence of the staff meeting was fabricated and did not contain any workers’ resolution approving a salary reduction.
The claimant’s lawyer further argued that Pyrammidt Company breached the terms of Esisorigho’s employment by terminating her appointment without notice or payment in lieu of notice.
In his judgment, Justice Hamman held that although Esisorigho did not present an employment letter, evidence before the court – including salary payments reflected in her bank statement and admissions by the company – clearly established an employer-employee relationship.
The judge also ruled that the alleged meeting minutes tendered by Pyrammidt Company were not credible proof of agreement to the salary reduction, because the document was unsigned, lacked an attendance list, and did not specifically show Esisorigho’s consent.
Justice Hamman said Esisorigho’s acceptance of the reduced salary for some time did not stop her from approaching the court to recover the deducted balance owed to her.
The court further held that Pyrammidt Company failed to terminate her employment properly, by not giving the required notice or payment in lieu of notice. While reinstatement could not be granted – because the employment relationship was one of master and servant – the court said the company’s wrongful conduct entitled the claimant to damages.
Justice Hamman also reasoned that although the company produced evidence showing that the cost of cleaning services had been reduced, there was nothing before the court linking Esisorigho’s salary to the contract value agreed between the company and its client.
“If that were the case,” the judge held, “any increase in payments made to the firm by its client would automatically lead to an increase in workers’ salaries, including that of the claimant.”
