INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING STRATEGIES: THE NEW TRENDS IN LABOUR RELATIONS

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING STRATEGIES: THE NEW TRENDS IN LABOUR RELATIONS






BY




MU’AZU MOHAMMED YUSIF






BEING A PAPER PRESENTED AT A WORKSHOP ORGANISED BY NATIONAL UNION OF BANKS, INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS EMPLOYEES HELD IN KANO ON WEDNESDAY 31ST JULY, 1996


This lecture is about labour relations in our country. The recent history of labour and industrial relations in Nigeria is full of uncertainties, inconsistency, lack of knowledge of labour laws by managers of labour relations in Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity, and is even determined by selfish interests.

It is therefore a subject which must be handled carefully within a clearly defined scope. However, other relevant issues and questions will be posed so that the participants would raise all sorts of questions, comments and discussions, on all aspects of the subject.

Introduction
The underlying political and economic principle of the IMF/World Bank Economic Recovery Programme i.e. structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) the Nigeria’s state is implementing is supposedly to create an economic environment determined by market forces and a liberal political system. In the field of labour-management relations this means that the industrial relations practice is to be deregulated. The concept of deregulation of industrial relations means that a Government or any of its agents will not intervene on condition of work service between employers and employees. Specifically deregulation, according to Fashoyin is “simply that any employer is free to pay such wages or salaries that he finds economically feasible to attract returns and motivate his employees”. Its political conception is whether the unions could develop capacity to fight. My own contribution is going to focus on whether deregulation of collective bargaining will ultimately create industrial peace in Nigeria.

For the workers of this country, Nigeria’s government still tunes in a confused manner to strategy of state intervention at one level and deregulation in industrial relations at another level, hence this topic is important so that workers can really understand the intention of government and act decisively to defend their common interests.

Industrial and Labour Relations in Nigeria
The term industrial relations connote the relationship between employer and employees especially under conditions of production created by modern class society i.e. capitalist society. As an area of study and research, it is the study of processes of control over work relations, which involve collective workers organisation and of employers of labour.

The essence of the conflict and the desire to control it in places of work in capitalist society is because the employers and the employees are in perpetual relationship of antagonism. There is perpetual conflict among them because of the following reasons:

1. These are two parties working together. But the interest of each is against the interest of the other. The employer is only mainly concerned with his property which in turn may be related to the financial interest of a number of stockholders, while the employees or their organisation is interested in their material needs, seeing that they are the ones daily building and expanding the property.
2. The antagonism is manifested deeply in the relations that the less the employer pays workers the more profits he declares while the more workers insist must be given means that the less profit the employer would make.

Thus, a workplace in a capitalist society is an arena for contest. If the work really is to take place the parties must disagree and act on the disagreement. U.G. Damachi said that “the Union which is in constant and total agreement with management has ceased to be a union. The same is true for management”.

Part of the mechanisms of control of contests in the workplace is provided by the state. We can identify two normative thoughts to the role of the state. The pluralist approach applies the analogy of pluralism in society to industrial relations. It is assumed that in society of competing groups, a way should be found of continued process of concession and compromise. In the case of industrial relations the state becomes an intermediary, a conciliator and an arbiter in the process of making compromise and concession between the interests of employers and Trade Unions. The second approach is the Marxist approach. This approach says that in capitalist societies the state is the instrument of the bourgeoisie. “That the Executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie”. Hence, the state is always on the side of the employer in order to protect the interest of the bourgeoisie.

Nigeria is a neo-colonial capitalist society. It is futile and waste of time to tell workers of Banks and other financial institutions how Nigeria’s economy is being controlled and siphoned by foreign capitalists and their indigenous agents in Nigeria. There are state policies and laws which facilitate making of huge profits by foreign capitalists and their domestic allies in Nigeria. Isn’t the SFEM and FEM such policies and laws of Nigeria’s state? It is true and I stand to learn more about this from you. I believe it is also the case of Nigeria’s law governing industrial relations.

The priority of the state in industrial relations is to facilitate conditions for peaceful industrial relations system. In fact, important emphasis is placed on settlement of disputes. Theoretically, there are different strategies pursued by Nigeria’s state on procedures of settlement of disputes. The first one is the principle of voluntary collective bargaining. This emphasise the freedom of labour and management to agree, without state intervention, the conditions under which workers work as well as other issues of labour relations. Secondly, is the principle of sovereignty. Under this principle the government is the sole determinant of wages and other conditions of service at least, in the public sector. This is the reason why government sets up wages tribunal toward wages or increase wages of workers. This method of industrial relations, means that government dictates wages and conditions of service, whether is accepted by the workers or not. Again, this is indeed contrary to principle of collective bargaining, which is recommended by international labour organisation as the only democratic path for civilised industrial relations system. While the principle of voluntary collective bargaining is not given a chance to operate because of excessive state intervention in industrial relations system, the strategy of state intervention does not allow peace in the system. Therefore, a confused shift in government policy emerged. This is what is called the principle of limited intervention, which is a combination of some elements of principle of voluntary collective bargaining and that of state intervention. This confusion can be traced in the Trade Disputes Decree No.7 of 1976. Indeed, the decree aims to encourage the process of collective bargaining. But assigned responsibilities to agencies of government which can scuttle the commitment of parties to arrive at collective bargaining agreement.

The questions now are: how is this inconsistency in law operates under the Economic Programme which promotes the development of Market forces? How is it promising for industrial peace in the country?

Before we answer these questions it is necessary we sharpened our understanding of the concept of collective bargaining.

Collective bargaining: Concept and Reality
Collective bargaining is the life wire of industrial democracy. The expansion of collective bargaining is the major means of achieving industrial democracy. Hence, to attain democracy in workplace it is necessary that the procedure of collective bargaining is adhered by both Trade Union and Management.

The concept collective bargaining as defined by James and Morris is “…in all its current complexities is the bread and butter of trade unions, their lifeblood, what their members regard as the reason for their existence, the normal means of defending their interest and maintaining and improving their living standards. The term covers the various negotiating methods and procedures generally used to reach agreement between employers and unions at all levels…”. The procedures of collective bargaining “normally set out the different stages of the negotiating process between management and unions, the occasion for the use of conciliation process between management and unions, the circumstance for the use of conciliation or arbitration machinery, the reference of issues to third parties or committees agreed by both sides or laid down by legislation”.

Thus, the collective bargaining process is based on the principle that workers have a right to negotiate and agreed with their employers as to wages and conditions of work and that the employers recognise that right.

A perfect model of collective bargaining is that both sides of industry are allowed largely to determine the scope of relations between them. The state is expected to only facilitate this process. Therefore, laws are provided precisely for that. Such laws promulgated in Nigeria include:

1. Trade Dispute (Emergency Provisions) Decree No.1 of 1968 amended in 1969 with further changes in 1970.
2. The Trade Union Decree No. 31, of 1973
3. The Wages Boards and Industrial Councils Decree No.1 of 1973
4. The Trade Union Dispute Decree No.7 of 1976
5. The Trade Dispute Decree (Essential Services) Decree No.25 of 1976
6. The Trade Dispute (Amended) Decree No.54 of 1977
7. Trade Union Central Labour Organisations (Special Provisions) Decree No.44 of 1976
8. Minimum wage Act 1981
9. Trade Disputes Act 1978

However, while the laws are expected to facilitate settlement of disputes, in feeling of freedom of Association and of democracy, in many cases, they are not.

Collective Bargaining Under Structural Adjustment Programme
The economic crisis which beset the Nigeria’s economy from early 1980’s and the subsequent economic recovery programme i.e. SAP has subjected the issues of collective bargaining to unprecedented fundamental changes. The fact, is that both the crisis and the Economic Recovery measures have created pressures and economic constraints for both employers and employees which necessarily affects the industrial relations system. The changes are obvious in issues for collective bargaining and in the structures of the bargaining. However, the response of the state to these changes has confused the industrial relations system and has raised the fundamental question of whether the implementation of the Structural Adjustment Programme, which teaches deregulation, has really created a possibility of removing state intervention in the industrial relations system as well as institutionalising democracy for a permanent peace in the system.

The legal and institutional framework of the industrial relation system has not changed. Only that, at convenience of government, today it can say it deregulates and decentralises collective bargaining and tomorrow it will say in the interest of the nation the state is to intervene. Thus in 1991 budget speech to the nation, the President Ibrahim Babangida gave orders of deregulation of collective bargaining. The motive of this was the attempt by the federal government to introduce wage differentials among the three tiers of government i.e. the local, state and federal employees. By this it means local and state government administrations would enter into separate and independent negotiations with their workers unions with intention of reaching agreements on wage levels that fall within the abilities of these administrations to pay. That policy statement had got no legal backing. It was only a matter of convenience to weaken workers’ union in the Nigeria’s civil service and to minimise wage bills of the three tiers of government in Nigeria. Therefore, there was no economic guarantee and no legal security for the workers to accept that procedure. As such, it became convenient for government to return to commission’s system in determining wages.

The Case of ASUU-FGN Disputes of 1996
The confusion, inconsistency and arbitrariness in Nigeria’s industrial relations system is revealed in handling the on-going disputes between Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) and the Federal Government of Nigeria.

The ASUU has since September 3rd 1992 handled negotiation and signed agreement with Federal Government of Nigeria on behalf of all academic staff of Nigerian Universities. The agreement was signed in September, but with effect from June the same year. The then National President of ASUU signed on behalf of Academic Staff of Nigerian Universities while the then Minister of Establishment and Management Services signed on behalf of the Federal Government of Nigeria.

The agreement was later endorsed on Friday, 12th September, 1992, by the then President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida.

The agreement makes provision for review. Specifically, section 7.8 of the 3rd September, 1992 agreement, titled “periodic review of the agreement” provides as follows:

“It was agreed that this agreement shall be reviewed every three years”.

By the above provision of the agreement it means the agreement should be reviewed effective from June, 1995. Conscious and obedient of the collective bargaining machinery, the academic staff union of Universities, since May, 1995, pursued the federal government of Nigeria to come to respect of the agreement.

1. From May 1995 to April, 1996 had written letters eighteen times to Minister of Education, but no reply
2. Had held meetings and made telephone calls eighth times, but no response
3. Had made press statements nine times to draw the attention of the Federal Government to the developing industrial crisis
4. A similar letter to the Minister of Education was written directly to General Sani Abacha, head of State and Commander-in-Chief of the Federal Republic of Nigeria” to intervene by instituting the negotiating team of the Nigerian Government to review those aspects of the agreement which developments in our National Economy have either rendered obsolete or whose original values have been vitiated”. Yet there was no response.

Thus on 10th January, 1996 the Academic Staff Union of Universities declared Trade Disputes with Federal Government of Nigeria. According to Nigeria’s Law on industrial relations the Federal Government of Nigeria is to within three weeks apprehend the dispute. This can be either by accepting to come for dialogue to review the agreement or it can challenge the demand of ASUU in Arbitration Industrial Panel (AIP). Neither happened.

In view of all these ASUU gave a three one-day warning strikes for three consecutive weeks to show that ASUU was preparing for a total strike action if the agreement is not reviewed. There was no response. Thus, on 9th April, 1996 the union came out on a total strike action, which is still on. Then the Federal Government set a collective bargaining machinery to review the agreement. The negotiation was going without hitch, when the Minister of Education scuttled it.

Why? The government wants throw away the agreement, not through dialogue. But by force. The federal ministry of education directed that collective bargaining is deregulated and that each University is to negotiate with its respective governing council. Yet the ministry gives guideline to all the governing councils of Nigerian universities what it wants the councils to negotiate and what not to negotiate. The statement further said that the out-come of negotiation in each University will be sent to the government for harmonisation. Therefore, there will be no collective agreement.
That is a government purporting to promote deregulation of collective bargaining but at the same time destroying it with sense of state intervention in the process.

Conclusion
Perhaps the deregulation of collectives bargaining in the private sector is such more effective than in the public sector. However, the confusion is clear shift of policy to deregulation has undoubtedly affected collective bargaining in the private sector. For example, the policy of wage-freeze and government interference in union affairs, resulting in factions and splits are some of the constraints in collective bargaining in the private sector.

Having highlighted the deregulation of collective bargaining in the industrial relations system, it is necessary to suggest ways of enhancing effective collective bargaining and hence a peaceful industrial relations system.

1. The first and essential condition foe effective collective bargaining machinery is the democratisation of the industrial relations system. In line with this the federal government of Nigeria should adhere unconditionally to the provisions of international labour organisation conventions 87, 98, 151, 154 which guarantee respectively.
a. Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to organise
b. Application of the principles of the right to organise and to bargain collectively
c. Protection of the right to organise and procedures for determining conditions of employment in the public service
d. Convention concerning the promotion of collective bargaining
2. That the entire legal and institutional framework of industrial relations system should be overhauled to incorporate recommendations of the ILO and democratise the institutions of the industrial relations system, by allowing them autonomy to speed up trade dispute cases.
3. That in industrial relations disputes with government, it should consider itself as employer not as government, so that it takes agreements signed with its agencies or ministries as binding.

References
1. Abel K. Uheku, Industrial Relations in Developing Countries: The case of Nigeria, Macmillan Press: London, 1983
2. ASUU and FGN, ASUU and Federal Government of Nigeria: Agreement, 3rd September, 1992
3. ASUU, Review of the FGN-ASUU Agreement of 3rd September, 1992: Decentralization of Trade Dispute, 1996
4. Damachi U.G. “Creating Industrial Peace” in U.G. Damachi and Taye Fashoyin (ed) Contemporary problem in Nigerian Industrial Relations, Development press limited: Lagos-Nigeria, 1986
5. Fashoyin T., Industrial Relations in Nigeria Longman: London, 1980
6. …, Deregulation and Demonstration of collective bargaining: Problems and Prospects: Paper presented at the National Workshop on Collective Bargaining in the Public and Private Sector, September – November 1992.
7. Federal Ministry of Education, Resolution of Crisis in the Universities New Nigerian, Thursday, July, 4, 1996
8. Jack Jones and Max Morris, A – Z of Trade Unionism and Industrial Relations Heinemann: London, 1982