Education

Court declares FG’s ‘no work no pay’ against ASUU legal

The National Industrial Court, on Tuesday, May 30, declared that the Federal Government’s position of ‘no work no pay’ against the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) is legal.

Delivering the judgement, Justice Benedict Kanyip declared that ASUU was not entitled to salary during the period it embarked on strike.

Justice Kanyip said in line with section 43(1a) of the Trade Dispute Act (TDA), ASUU members who participated in the eight months strike were not entitled to salaries.

“Although employers and workers can enter an agreement, for which the workers will be paid during the period of a strike action, when such agreement was not made, no worker is expected to get paid,” the judge declared.

Kanyip stated that the Federal Government and Minister of Education who were the claimants in the suit were wrong to pray for the court to impose sanctions on ASUU for embarking on a peaceful strike.

The judge termed it as a gross violation to their right to freedom of association as stipulated by International Labour Organisation’s (ILO) jurisprudence.

Justice Kanyip added: “There is nothing before the court to prove that ASUU was not peaceful during the strike.

“No employee should be victimised or sanctioned for embarking on peaceful strike.”

The judge said the claimants cannot force ASUU to accept payment of its members’ salaries through Integrated Personnel and Payroll Information System (IPPIS) for long as they confirm to their budgetary allocation.

Justice Kanyip declared that because of university’s autonomy, the claimants’ submission that ASUU’s payment platform system failed integrity test it was subjected to by NITDA was a mere hearsay

He said in line with section 18 of the TDA, “no employer shall embark on lockout and no worker shall embark on an industrial action when trade dispute is apprehended and a reconciliation is ongoing.

“Section 43(2) of the trade dispute act, which gives sole powers to the Minister to determine if there has been a lockout by an employer, falls contrary to section 6 of 1999 constitution as amended

“The determination of a lockout is for the court to decide and not for the executive arm of the government,” the judge added.