Air Peace, Unionisation and the Limits of Industrial Action
By Fred Chukwuelobe
That statement was made in an interview by Frances Akinjole, General Secretary of the Air Transport Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (ATSSAN), during the ongoing dispute involving Air Peace and aviation unions.
Mr. Akinjole reportedly went further, claiming that only two airlines in Nigeria allow unionisation and invoking Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution to justify the unions’ position.
To my mind, this goes beyond an ordinary labour dispute. The language of the attack raises a question: is the objective genuinely to protect workers’ interests, or is industrial action being deployed in a manner capable of damaging Air Peace’s reputation? Who are these unionists working for?
Calling Air Peace “the champion of bad airlines in Nigeria” is not, by itself, a labour argument. It is a sweeping indictment of a prominent Nigerian airline. If a union official has evidence of regulatory, operational or labour violations, the proper course is to present that evidence to the relevant authorities and allow the law to take its course. Inflammatory language does not strengthen a labour case.
Section 40 of the 1999 constitution as amended deserves careful examination.
The Constitution guarantees the right to assemble freely and associate with others and, in particular, to form or belong to a political party, trade union or other association for the protection of one’s interests. Workers must be free to organise, join unions and pursue legitimate collective interests.
But the wording matters. The Constitution says “form or belong.” It does not say that every worker must belong to a particular union. The National Human Rights Commission recognises freedom of association as including the right to freely form or belong to a trade union, subject to the Constitution and the law. The National Industrial Court of Nigeria has exclusive jurisdiction over labour, employment, trade union and industrial relations matters.
That distinction is central to the controversy surrounding the picketing of Air Peace.
According to reports, aviation unions picketed Air Peace operations in Lagos, Abuja and other locations, disrupting flight operations and affecting passengers. The unions cited grievances including alleged anti-union practices and financial obligations.
Air Peace, however, has maintained that its workers do not wish to participate in the unions’ action and that some employees protested against being drawn into the dispute.
If that position is accurate, a fundamental question arises: can a union use industrial action to compel workers who are not its members to participate in its dispute?
Section 43 of the Trade Unions Act provides an important answer. It makes peaceful picketing lawful where people attend at or near a workplace to peacefully obtain or communicate information or persuade people to work or abstain from working. But it also prohibits subjecting another person to constraint or restriction of personal freedom in the course of persuasion and expressly states that a union or its members must not, during a strike, compel a non-member to join the strike or obstruct highways, institutions or premises for that purpose.
The right to unionise is simply not a licence to coerce. The right to peaceful picketing is not a licence to intimidate. The right to strike is not a licence to compel non-members to participate.
And a legitimate labour dispute is not a licence to hold the travelling public hostage.
I therefore disagree with reducing this matter to a simplistic battle between “labour” and “management.” At least three interests are involved.
First is the legitimate right of trade unions to organise workers and pursue genuine labour interests.
Second is the right of individual workers to exercise their freedom of association and decide whether, and with whom, they wish to associate, subject to applicable law.
Third is the right of innocent passengers not to have legitimate journeys disrupted by an industrial dispute in which they have no direct interest.
This is why Mr. Akinjole’s language is troubling. When the general secretary of an aviation union describes an airline as “the champion of bad airlines” while his organisation is simultaneously engaged in industrial action against that airline, Nigerians are entitled to ask whether the language is intended to resolve a dispute or to discredit a company. Those who accuse the unions of being sponsored have a point.
If the unions believe Air Peace has violated labour laws, frustrated legitimate unionisation or breached statutory obligations, there are established mechanisms for addressing those grievances. Relevant labour and aviation authorities and, where necessary, the National Industrial Court can examine the issues. (National Industrial Court)
What should not happen is for industrial action to become a means of punishing innocent passengers or compelling workers into an association against their wishes.
The government therefore has a responsibility to ensure that this dispute remains within the law. The reported intervention of Aviation Minister Festus Keyamo, following which the unions suspended the picketing pending further discussions, is welcome. But the matter should not end there.
Let me be clear: I support the right of Nigerian workers to unionise. I support lawful collective bargaining and legitimate labour struggles. But I do not support coercion, intimidation or the use of industrial action as a weapon to destroy a company or punish citizens who have nothing to do with the dispute.
Section 40 protects freedom of association. It does not confer a monopoly of association on any particular union.
The right to belong to a union cannot logically become the right to force another person to belong to that union.
If Mr. Akinjole and his colleagues believe otherwise, they should take that argument to the appropriate forum and let the law decide.
As for the claim that Air Peace is “the champion of bad airlines in Nigeria,” that is a reputational judgment, not a legal argument. If evidence exists to support such a sweeping indictment, it should be presented to the appropriate regulatory authorities and, where justified, the Nigerian public.
Otherwise, Nigerians are entitled to see such rhetoric as an unnecessarily aggressive attempt to discredit a Nigerian airline in the middle of a labour dispute.
Chukwuelobe, journalist, public affairs commentator, writes from Lagos
The post Air Peace, Unionisation and the Limits of Industrial Action appeared first on Vanguard News.