Court affirms CONUA, NAMDA as trade unions

<p>The Judge stated that the Section does not encourage monopoly of trade unions, but rather the section encourages existence of other trade unions.</p>, <span>Court affirms CONUA, NAMDA as trade unions</span>, <h2>The National Industrial Court on Tuesday, July 25, 2023 affirmed the recognition of Congress of Nigerian University Academics (CONUA) and National Association of Medical and Dental Academics (NAMDA) as trade unions.</h2>, <p>The claimant in the suit, the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), dragged the Minister of Labour and Employment, The Registrar, Trade Union, CONUA and NAMDA as first, second, third and fourth defendants respectively.</p>, <p>Delivering judgment, Justice Benedict Kanyip held that in line with the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Act, there can be more than one trade union within an employment.</p>, <p>The judge in addition stated that contrary to claimant’s submission that Section 3 ( 2) of Trade Union Act made the first and second defendants incompetent to register CONUA and NAMDA to coexist and carry out same functions in the universities as ASUU.</p>, <p>Kanyip said that the Section does not encourage monopoly of trade unions, but rather the section encourages existence of other trade unions.</p>, <p>The court said “the reliefs prayed by the claimant failed, refused and I so hold. I make no order as to cost”.</p>, <p>From facts, the claimant had instituted the suit via an originating summons filed on June 26,2022. The claimant counsel, Mr Femi Falana SAN, submitted two questions for determination.</p>, <p>Part of the question was whether by Section 4 (2) of the constitution of Nigeria 1999 as amended and Section 3 (2) of TUA, the second defendant can register CONUA and NAMDA to carry out the same functions covering the same jurisdiction sphere as the claimant.</p>, <p>The counsel further averred that the second and third defendants registered the third and fourth defendants in a bid to split ASUU. The first and second defendants in reply submitted that the court s