The National Industrial Court of Nigeria sitting in Yola, Adamawa State capital, has held that an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) clause in UBA Group Staff Handbook cannot bar a former employee from seeking legal remedies.
The presiding judge, Justice Nelson Ogbuanya, described the clause as restrictive.
He delivered judgment on a suit filed by a former United Bank for Africa (UBA) Manager Yusuf Ayangbade against the bank.
Ruling on the bank’s preliminary objection, Justice Ogbuanya held: “Where an ADR clause rather provides an uncertain procedure inhibiting effective dispute resolution, it has failed in its primary mission to provide alternative to litigation.
“It is, therefore, my humble but sustained view and I hold that such an uncertain and clumsy clause of ADR is certainly not an effective dispute resolution clause as envisaged by the promoters of ADR providing a panacea for congested and often distasteful outcome of litigation.”
Striking down the clause, His Lordship held: “The rationale for compelling the ex-employee to return to the defendant’s staff (Head of Human Capital Management) to make complaint and seek resolution upon being aggrieved, is in my view, of doubtful efficacy.
“It tends to restrict an ex-employee who has become an external aggrieved party from litigating an issue against the defendant organisation – the former employer.
“Such requirement in my humble view is not in tandem with best practice of labour relations, and can be akin to compelling divorced couple to return to their erstwhile matrimonial bed as forum for resolution of alimony issue.
“Accordingly, to insist that an ex-employee must submit to this kind of forum even fraught with an uncertain dispute resolution procedure will unwittingly shackle the claimant’s constitutional right to gain access to court to ventilate his grievance against his Ex-employer, the defendant. I so hold.
“Such unwarranted restrictive provision is liable to be struck down. Accordingly, I find and hold that the provisions of Paragraph 6.7 of the U.B.A Group Staff Handbook Policy Document No: HRG: 001 dated June 2010, constitutes an improper obstacle in the way of the claimant, being an ex-employee of the defendant, to accessing the court to ventilate and litigate his dispute with the defendant, his ex-employer, before this court.
“As such, I hereby affirm the competency of this suit and hasten to invoke the jurisdiction of the court to entertain same,” the Judge ruled.
The former Bank Manager sued the bank for alleged wrongful dismissal. He prayed for his entitlements and damages.
But, the bank through its counsel, Hussaini G. Maidawa, insisted that the claimant was involved in unauthorised vault lending which was a gross misconduct and as such was not entitled to any benefits.
The bank raised a preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction on the ground that the claimant’s suit was pre-mature as he did not exhaust the bank’s internal dispute resolution mechanism before filing the suit.
In his verdict, Justice Ogbuanya said: “I hold that the claimant is entitled to be reimbursed full payment of his withheld salaries and entitlements from February 2013 to March 2015, being the period covered by the suspension pending investigation and when he became aware of his subsequent wrongful dismissal. Judgment is accordingly entered for the Claimant in the sum ascertained.”
The judge ordered the defendant to compute and pay to the claimant his entitlements within two months from judgment day.
He awarded N2 million damages against the bank for wrongful dismissal of a staff in a delicate sector of the economy.
