The National Industrial court has held that it is legal no to pay salaries to striking members of ASUU during the period which the strike lasted.
Justice Benedict Kanpiq held that in line with section 43(1a) of the Trade Union Act, members of ASUU who participated in the 8 months long strike are not entitled to salaries.
Although employers and workers can enter an agreement, for which the workers will be paid during the period of strike, when such agreement was not made, no worker is expected to get paid.
Imposing sanctions on leaders for leading a legal strike is a gross violation to their right to freedom of expression.
There is nothing before the court to prove that ASUU was not peaceful during the strike
The court also held that the federal government can not force ASUU to accept payments through IPPIS so long as they confirm to their budgetary allocation.
The federal government is wrong to have imposed IPPIS on ASUU.
The court also held that in line with section 18 of the Trade dispute Act , no employer shall embark on lockout and no worker shall embark on an industrial action when trade dispute is apprehended and a reconciliation on going.
Section 43(2) of the trade dispute act , which gives sole powers to the Minister to determine if there have been a lockout by an employer, falls contrary to section 6 of the constitution.
The determination of a lockout is for the court not for the executive arm of the government.
Section 43(2) is struck out.
The National Industrial court has held that it is legal no to pay salaries to striking members of ASUU during the period which the strike lasted.
Justice Benedict Kanpiq held that in line with section 43(1a) of the Trade Union Act, members of ASUU who participated in the 8 months long strike are not entitled to salaries.
Although employers and workers can enter an agreement, for which the workers will be paid during the period of strike, when such agreement was not made, no worker is expected to get paid.
Imposing sanctions on leaders for leading a legal strike is a gross violation to their right to freedom of expression.
There is nothing before the court to prove that ASUU was not peaceful during the strike
The court also held that the federal government can not force ASUU to accept payments through IPPIS so long as they confirm to their budgetary allocation.
The federal government is wrong to have imposed IPPIS on ASUU.
The court also held that in line with section 18 of the Trade dispute Act , no employer shall embark on lockout and no worker shall embark on an industrial action when trade dispute is apprehended and a reconciliation on going.
Section 43(2) of the trade dispute act , which gives sole powers to the Minister to determine if there have been a lockout by an employer, falls contrary to section 6 of the constitution.
The determination of a lockout is for the court not for the executive arm of the government.
Section 43(2) is struck out.
The National Industrial court has held that it is legal no to pay salaries to striking members of ASUU during the period which the strike lasted.
Justice Benedict Kanpiq held that in line with section 43(1a) of the Trade Union Act, members of ASUU who participated in the 8 months long strike are not entitled to salaries.
Although employers and workers can enter an agreement, for which the workers will be paid during the period of strike, when such agreement was not made, no worker is expected to get paid.
Imposing sanctions on leaders for leading a legal strike is a gross violation to their right to freedom of expression.
There is nothing before the court to prove that ASUU was not peaceful during the strike
The court also held that the federal government can not force ASUU to accept payments through IPPIS so long as they confirm to their budgetary allocation.
The federal government is wrong to have imposed IPPIS on ASUU.
The court also held that in line with section 18 of the Trade dispute Act , no employer shall embark on lockout and no worker shall embark on an industrial action when trade dispute is apprehended and a reconciliation on going.
Section 43(2) of the trade dispute act , which gives sole powers to the Minister to determine if there have been a lockout by an employer, falls contrary to section 6 of the constitution.
The determination of a lockout is for the court not for the executive arm of the government.
Section 43(2) is struck out.
The National Industrial court has held that it is legal no to pay salaries to striking members of ASUU during the period which the strike lasted.
Justice Benedict Kanpiq held that in line with section 43(1a) of the Trade Union Act, members of ASUU who participated in the 8 months long strike are not entitled to salaries.
Although employers and workers can enter an agreement, for which the workers will be paid during the period of strike, when such agreement was not made, no worker is expected to get paid.
Imposing sanctions on leaders for leading a legal strike is a gross violation to their right to freedom of expression.
There is nothing before the court to prove that ASUU was not peaceful during the strike
The court also held that the federal government can not force ASUU to accept payments through IPPIS so long as they confirm to their budgetary allocation.
The federal government is wrong to have imposed IPPIS on ASUU.
The court also held that in line with section 18 of the Trade dispute Act , no employer shall embark on lockout and no worker shall embark on an industrial action when trade dispute is apprehended and a reconciliation on going.
Section 43(2) of the trade dispute act , which gives sole powers to the Minister to determine if there have been a lockout by an employer, falls contrary to section 6 of the constitution.
The determination of a lockout is for the court not for the executive arm of the government.
Section 43(2) is struck out.
The National Industrial court has held that it is legal no to pay salaries to striking members of ASUU during the period which the strike lasted.
Justice Benedict Kanpiq held that in line with section 43(1a) of the Trade Union Act, members of ASUU who participated in the 8 months long strike are not entitled to salaries.
Although employers and workers can enter an agreement, for which the workers will be paid during the period of strike, when such agreement was not made, no worker is expected to get paid.
Imposing sanctions on leaders for leading a legal strike is a gross violation to their right to freedom of expression.
There is nothing before the court to prove that ASUU was not peaceful during the strike
The court also held that the federal government can not force ASUU to accept payments through IPPIS so long as they confirm to their budgetary allocation.
The federal government is wrong to have imposed IPPIS on ASUU.
The court also held that in line with section 18 of the Trade dispute Act , no employer shall embark on lockout and no worker shall embark on an industrial action when trade dispute is apprehended and a reconciliation on going.
Section 43(2) of the trade dispute act , which gives sole powers to the Minister to determine if there have been a lockout by an employer, falls contrary to section 6 of the constitution.
The determination of a lockout is for the court not for the executive arm of the government.
Section 43(2) is struck out.
The National Industrial court has held that it is legal no to pay salaries to striking members of ASUU during the period which the strike lasted.
Justice Benedict Kanpiq held that in line with section 43(1a) of the Trade Union Act, members of ASUU who participated in the 8 months long strike are not entitled to salaries.
Although employers and workers can enter an agreement, for which the workers will be paid during the period of strike, when such agreement was not made, no worker is expected to get paid.
Imposing sanctions on leaders for leading a legal strike is a gross violation to their right to freedom of expression.
There is nothing before the court to prove that ASUU was not peaceful during the strike
The court also held that the federal government can not force ASUU to accept payments through IPPIS so long as they confirm to their budgetary allocation.
The federal government is wrong to have imposed IPPIS on ASUU.
The court also held that in line with section 18 of the Trade dispute Act , no employer shall embark on lockout and no worker shall embark on an industrial action when trade dispute is apprehended and a reconciliation on going.
Section 43(2) of the trade dispute act , which gives sole powers to the Minister to determine if there have been a lockout by an employer, falls contrary to section 6 of the constitution.
The determination of a lockout is for the court not for the executive arm of the government.
Section 43(2) is struck out.
The National Industrial court has held that it is legal no to pay salaries to striking members of ASUU during the period which the strike lasted.
Justice Benedict Kanpiq held that in line with section 43(1a) of the Trade Union Act, members of ASUU who participated in the 8 months long strike are not entitled to salaries.
Although employers and workers can enter an agreement, for which the workers will be paid during the period of strike, when such agreement was not made, no worker is expected to get paid.
Imposing sanctions on leaders for leading a legal strike is a gross violation to their right to freedom of expression.
There is nothing before the court to prove that ASUU was not peaceful during the strike
The court also held that the federal government can not force ASUU to accept payments through IPPIS so long as they confirm to their budgetary allocation.
The federal government is wrong to have imposed IPPIS on ASUU.
The court also held that in line with section 18 of the Trade dispute Act , no employer shall embark on lockout and no worker shall embark on an industrial action when trade dispute is apprehended and a reconciliation on going.
Section 43(2) of the trade dispute act , which gives sole powers to the Minister to determine if there have been a lockout by an employer, falls contrary to section 6 of the constitution.
The determination of a lockout is for the court not for the executive arm of the government.
Section 43(2) is struck out.
The National Industrial court has held that it is legal no to pay salaries to striking members of ASUU during the period which the strike lasted.
Justice Benedict Kanpiq held that in line with section 43(1a) of the Trade Union Act, members of ASUU who participated in the 8 months long strike are not entitled to salaries.
Although employers and workers can enter an agreement, for which the workers will be paid during the period of strike, when such agreement was not made, no worker is expected to get paid.
Imposing sanctions on leaders for leading a legal strike is a gross violation to their right to freedom of expression.
There is nothing before the court to prove that ASUU was not peaceful during the strike
The court also held that the federal government can not force ASUU to accept payments through IPPIS so long as they confirm to their budgetary allocation.
The federal government is wrong to have imposed IPPIS on ASUU.
The court also held that in line with section 18 of the Trade dispute Act , no employer shall embark on lockout and no worker shall embark on an industrial action when trade dispute is apprehended and a reconciliation on going.
Section 43(2) of the trade dispute act , which gives sole powers to the Minister to determine if there have been a lockout by an employer, falls contrary to section 6 of the constitution.
The determination of a lockout is for the court not for the executive arm of the government.
Section 43(2) is struck out.
Related posts:
FG withdraws ‘no work, no pay’ threat issued to ASUU
President Tinubu approves partial waiver of “No Work, No Pay” order on ASUU members
Legal Aid Council provides legal service in rural areas
Fmr U.S President Trump asked to pay NY Times almost $400,000 in legal costs
FG threatens legal action against ASUU as meeting flops again
UNIOSUN NASU strike : Management threatens ‘no work no pay policy’
Nasarawa Government Invokes No Work, No Pay Rule as industrial action continues
NAAT suspends strike, rejects ‘No Pay No Work’ Policy
