The Petroleum and [/size]Natural Gas Senior [/font][/size]Staff Association (PENGASSAN) has lost its appeal at the National Industrial Court,Lagos, against the termination of some its members’ appointment by Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited (MPNU).
[/size] Dismissing the appeal, the court held that it lacks merit. "The Industrial Arbitration Panel (IAP) award is confirmed," said the presiding judge, Justice Benedict Kanyip.[/size]
The IAP, in its March 24, 2010 verdict, had refused to reinstate the workers. [/font]
[/size]It agreed with the arguments of Mobil’s lawyer, Mr Sunny Omoragbon, that the contract staff members working in the oil company’s locations were not its employees. PENGASSAN objected to the award.
[/size]The Minister of Labour, acting in line with Section 14 (1) of the Trade Disputes Act, referred the matter to the Industrial Court, urging it to inquire into the alleged "unfair severance or termination of the trade union leaders in MPNU, Contract Staff Branch."
[/size]PENGASSAN sought an order declaring the termination of the appointment of eight union leaders and members of its Contract Staff Branch of MPNU as unlawful, illegal, null and void.
[/size]It urged the court to order their reinstatement, with payment of their salaries and allowances from the date of their "wrongful termination" till judgment.
[/size]The association alleged acts of threat and intimidation directed by the oil company "essentially" at the executive members, which it believed was triggered by the industrial action they embarked on in August 2009.
[/size]Omoragbon told the court that the contract workers began agitating for "Equal Pay for Equal Work" with Mobil’s regular workers in January 2006.
[/size]The workers, he said, sought to directly negotiate their grievance with the company, even though the respondent is not a party to the employment agreement between the workers and their various Forums of Contractors.
[/size]The lawyer said Mobil could not, therefore, undertake a review of such agreement or the pay conditions of personnel who are not its employees.
[/size]The respondent said it was compelled to invoke the relevant clause in its agreement with the independent contractors in charge of the workers by urging them to withdraw their affected personnel from Mobil’s premises because of their "disruptive" behaviour.
[/size]On whether Mobil is actually the employer of the sacked workers, Justice Kanyip held that no employment contract of any kind was exhibited in order to know the exact terms and conditions upon which they were engaged.
[/font][/font]
TheNation