BY VICTOR AHIUMA-YOUNG
A RENOWNED Industrial Relations scholar and Vice-Chancellor  of Joseph Ayo Babalola University, JABU, Ikeji-Arakeji, Osun State, Professor Sola Fajana, has bemoaned the poor labour standards in the country, lamenting that Nigeria has continually been carpeted by the International Labour Organisation, ILO, for flagrant violation of workers and  trade union rights.

PRESENTING a paper on “A Critique of the Regulatory Authorities in the Finance Industry: The Need for Decent Work Agenda”, at a workshop organised by Association of Senior Staff of Banks, Insurance and Financial Institutions, ASSBIFI, Prof Fajana said the objective  of labour administration within the purview of the Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity created in 1954, was to strengthen labour standards and practice in all sectors especially in the weak sectors to ensure minimum floors of protection for vulnerable groups.

He however argued that “major gaps exist in the achievements of the espoused goals of labour administration. There is a visible relegating attitude of the government at the centre to the Ministry.”

Labour standards: Represented by Mr. Ranti Samuel, a Lecturer at Lagos State University, LASU, the JABU’s Vice-Chancellor said “Nigeria,  a member of the ILO since 1960, has ratified a total of 38 ILO Conventions of which 34 are currently in force.

Included among the  ratified conventions are all the eight core conventions that include those that enable social dialogue to take place notably, Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1947 (No.87); Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No.98); the Tripartite Consultation Convention, 1976 (No.144).

Decent work deficits

Nigeria has not ratified a number of conventions which are crucial to addressing decent work deficits in the labour market and the critical challenge of poverty and social exclusion particularly within the context of the economic crisis.

These include ILO Conventions C122, 129, 150, C187, & 188 that relate to labour market governance and C102 on social security.  Implementation of ratified conventions has not always been effective owing to capacity challenges in ensuring compliance with such commitments, and lack of adequate awareness of the provisions of such conventions.

Nigeria has continually been carpeted by the ILO for flagrant violation of trade union rights. Comments by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendation indicate a need for strengthening national capacity towards the improved quality of reporting on ratified conventions and responding to comments of supervisory bodies.”

“Staff Reports by ILO reveals that Nigeria has 25 reports due for 1st September 2010, a number which indicate that it is encountering difficulties in fulfilling its constitutional reporting obligations periodically, in virtue of Article 22 of ILO Constitution.

It also has failed to provide the relevant information to the Committee of Experts on the “submission” to the National Assembly of the instruments adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 94th Session (Maritime Labour Convention; Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention and Recommendation; Employment Relationship Recommendation) and 96th Sessions (Work in Fishing Convention and Recommendation), as requested by Article 19 of ILO Constitution.

On the status of instruments ratified it is observed that a certain number of conventions ratified by Nigeria are now shelved (such as Conventions Nos. 50, 64, 65 or 104), considered outdated (Conventions Nos. 32 or 123), need to be revised (Conventions Nos. 8, 16, 134) or have currently an interim status (Conventions Nos. 11, 19, 26, 45, 88, 133, 137).

There are pending observations of ILO Committee on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations concerning Conventions No. 87 (Freedom of Association), 88, 98 (Collective Bargaining), 105 (Forced Labour), 111 (Discrimination), 123, 134 and 144 (Tripartite Consultation) and direct requests concerning the effective implementation of ratified ILO instruments.”

He explained that “Current deficits include respect of constitutional obligations. There is need to clear the backlog and put in place a mechanism which will ensure regular communication of quality reports by Nigeria and regular submission of newly adopted ILO instruments to the legislative authorities.

There is need to ‘clean’ the list of ILO instruments ratified by Nigeria and, particularly, look into the possibility of ratifying the Maritime Labour Convention mentioned by Nigeria some time ago.

Enhance effective implementation of ratified instruments (particularly of instruments dealing with social dialogue, discrimination, child labour, forced labour, etc.) by: ensuring that Nigeria labour legislation conforms to provisions of ratified international labour standards; and promoting ratified standards with the ILO tripartite constituents but also other key actors in the implementation of ILS, such as for example, judges, journalists, labour law professors, etc.

The ILO-inspired review of Nigerian labour laws continued to be pending at the National Assembly after 3 years. Yet, some of the deficits of decent work and pay can be minimised through effective labour laws.”

Social Dialogue: According to Fajana, “The social dialogue picture in Nigeria is described by the networks of actors and the institutions they have established for the promotion of joint discussions, negotiation or determination of the issues that confront the social partners either within the place of work and even outside it so far as the object of their interaction is the resolutions of identified conflicts.

There are 29 trade unions, 22 senior staff associations, 22 employers associations, 4 professional unions organised along industry basis. Social dialogue forms in Nigeria include collective bargaining, which is bipartite. In its tripartite form, dialogue involves co-operation among government, employers’ organizations and workers’ organizations in formulating or implementing labour, social or economic policy.

In its tripartite-plus form, dialogue involves all stakeholders such as the host community, non-governmental agencies, civil society, and the three tiers of government, workers’ organizations, emp
loyers’ organizations, and the like.

“Collective bargaining is quite effective in Nigeria especially in the private sector where trade unions and employers or employers’ associations have shown visible commitment to the sanctity of collective agreements.

The system of collective bargaining in the public sector does not encourage appointed bargaining agents to commit the government by signing draft agreements on behalf of government. This often leads to delays in the ratification process.

Internal communications within organizations are adjudged as effective in all sectors. Community interaction on labour matters is still at its infancy because even the national assembly has not been faithful to community reviews in its legislative functions.

The introductory process of State economic reforms have not benefitted much from social dialogue as reforms were in most cases adopted while awaited reactions from labour are contained through state machineries. This is exemplified in the various objection reactions that visited water privatisation and other public enterprises, unbundling of electricity as part of the power sector reforms, and the like.”

He added that “deficits exist persistently in the quantum and quality of social dialogue that has evolved in Nigeria. The following are noticeable: The low rate of unionisation in the informal economy, even though 70 per cent of the workforce are in this sector; low union density in the formal sector; The anti-union stance of some employers in spite of the ratification of freedom of association and collective bargaining conventions; The preference of the State to introduce non-inclusive reforms (i.e., without reference to the inputs of other constituents), especially labour and host community; The absence of (and lack of commitment to) mutually / commonly acceptable values that would inspire good faith dialogue.”