MR. CHARLES DAVIS v. WEST AFRICAN DRYDOCK LIMITED
NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT
(PORT HARCOURT DIVISION)
(BASHIR, J)
FACTS
Mr. Charles Davis (the Claimant) was employed by West African Drydock Limited (the Defendant) in the year 2000, with his appointment confirmed in 2002. Over the years, he rose through the ranks to become a management staff within the Defendant company. However, in 2021, his employment was terminated on the grounds of redundancy. The Claimant contended that following the termination of his employment, he became entitled to redundancy benefits in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment agreement entered into in 2018, as well as the conventional practices consistently adopted by the Defendant in similar circumstances.
“Collective agreements, though relevant in employment relations, are generally regarded as a gentleman’s agreement, extra-legal document lacking enforceability unless their terms are expressly incorporated into an individual employee’s contract of employment.”
It was the Claimant’s case that upon being laid off, the Defendant paid him the sum of ₦25,741,049.00 as part of his redundancy settlement, leaving an outstanding balance of ₦23,509,155.00 unpaid. The Claimant alleged that despite several demands, the Defendant has persistently refused to pay this outstanding balance along with other accrued entitlements and benefits. He further averred that although he had signed a Collective Bargaining Agreement in 2018, he was unaware that the agreement had a life span of only two years and had expired prior to the termination of his employment in 2021. Additionally, the Claimant claimed that he was misled by the Defendant into signing an undertaking upon collection of his severance cheque and letter, only to later discover that the amount paid did not represent his full entitlement under the terms of his employment and established company practice.
Conversely, the Defendant argued that while the Claimant was indeed its employee, his appointment was governed strictly by the terms and conditions of his individual employment contract. The Defendant contended that the Collective Agreement between Sea Trucks Group of Companies and the Maritime Workers Union of Nigeria, which the Claimant sought to rely on, was inapplicable to him as it covered only junior and intermediate staff, whereas the Claimant was a management staff at the time of termination. The Defendant maintained that it had duly paid the Claimant all his entitlements, including three months’ salary in lieu of notice, end-of-year bonus, annual leave allowance, and redundancy benefits, totalling ₦25,741,049.00, which the Claimant accepted as full and final settlement of his redundancy and terminal benefits. A sole issue for determination was: Whether the Claimant is entitled to further redundancy benefits from the Defendant in line with the terms and conditions of his employment and the Defendant’s conventional practices.
ARGUMENTS
Learned counsel for the Claimant submitted that the Claimant’s employment was terminated by the Defendant on the grounds of redundancy. Counsel argued that, consistent with the established practice and the relevant agreements between the Defendant and its employees as at 2018, all employees affected by redundancy – irrespective of their status, rank, or cadre – are entitled to redundancy benefits. Counsel contended that the Claimant was not given prior notice of the redundancy exercise, nor was he afforded sufficient time on the day he was served with the severance letter to verify or confirm the accuracy and completeness of his final entitlements before payment was made.
Furthermore, counsel argued that although the Defendant’s senior and management staff are prohibited from joining any labour union within the company, it is the conventional practice of the Defendant to adopt and apply the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) at the time of redundancy to calculate the redundancy benefits and entitlements of all categories of staff, including senior management staff. The Claimant contended that while the Defendant claimed to have paid his entitlements in line with his letter of employment and the conditions of service, it failed to tender the said conditions of service in evidence to substantiate how the final sum paid was computed. Counsel therefore submitted that the Claimant, having pleaded and demonstrated the calculation of his final entitlements based on the CBA before the court, had discharged the evidential burden on him, while the Defendant, relying on a document not in evidence, failed to prove its own defence. Counsel urged the court to accept the CBA as the only reliable basis for calculating the Claimant’s redundancy benefits and to grant all the reliefs sought by the Claimant accordingly.
In response to the Claimant’s submissions, learned counsel for the Defendant argued that the issues relating to the procedures for declaring redundancy or terminating employment on the grounds of redundancy were not raised in the Claimant’s pleadings or evidence before the court. Counsel submitted that the parties did not join issues on these matters, and as such, the arguments advanced by the Claimant’s counsel regarding alleged procedural impropriety and inadequate notice of redundancy are baseless, irrelevant, and should be disregarded. He emphasised that at no point in the Claimant’s pleadings or testimony did he challenge the validity of the termination of his employment on grounds of redundancy, nor did he make any claim for wrongful termination in this suit. Consequently, counsel argued that any submissions by the Claimant on those issues amount to arguments outside the scope of the pleaded case and should not be entertained by the court.
Furthermore, counsel contended that although the Claimant seeks to rely on the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) as the basis for calculating his redundancy entitlements, he bears the burden of establishing that the said CBA is applicable to him. Counsel noted that the Claimant, having admitted to being a member of management staff, falls outside the category of employees to whom the CBA applies, as management staff are not covered by the terms of that agreement. Counsel further submitted that the contents of a document admitted before the court cannot be varied, altered, amended, or expanded by oral evidence, as documents speak for themselves. Accordingly, since the CBA does not support the Claimant’s claims and he has failed to provide any other admissible evidence substantiating his entitlement to the reliefs sought, the Claimant has not discharged the burden of proof required to succeed in his case. Counsel urged the court to dismiss the Claimant’s claims in their entirety.
DECISION OF THE COURT
In resolving this issue, the National Industrial Court held that:
Collective agreements, though relevant in employment relations, are generally regarded as a gentleman’s agreement, extra-legal document lacking enforceability unless their terms are expressly incorporated into an individual employee’s contract of employment. The Court emphasised that although collective agreements may set out general rights, benefits, or standards applicable within an organisation or industry, they do not, on their own, create enforceable contractual obligations between an employer and an employee in the absence of clear incorporation into the employee’s terms and conditions of service.
Furthermore, the Court held that in the present case, the burden rested squarely on the Claimant to demonstrate that the rights and benefits he sought to enforce under the collective agreement had been specifically incorporated into his employment contract or conditions of service. The Court noted that without establishing this legal nexus between the collective agreement and his personal terms of employment with the Defendant, the Claimant could not rely on the collective agreement as the basis for his claims. Accordingly, the Court concluded that all the reliefs sought by the Claimant were bound to fail in the absence of evidence showing that the provisions of the collective agreement formed part of his contractual entitlements.
Issue resolved in favour of the Defendant.
M. O. Egware Esq. for the Claimant
B. E. Mbagwu Esq. for the Defendant
This summary is fully reported at (2025) 6 CLRN in association with ALP NG & Co.
See www.clrndirect.com ; www.alp.company.
