NLC Crisis: Need For Urgent Settlement

L-R: Newly elected chairman, Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), Kaduna State Council, Ephraim James, Deputy Chairman, John Adaji and Treasurer, Danladi Yahaya, during the 11th NLC state delegates conference in Kaduna, recently.

The Nigeria Labour Con
gress (NLC), one of the umbrella bodies of trade unions in Nigeria is a non-partisan public organisation, which unites on a voluntary basis, workers and other employees of all occupations, irrespective of race, nationality, sex or religious beliefs. It is the organising and directing force of Nigerian workforce and mobilises them for the struggle to build a verile industrial society.
It is only possible to understand the part actually played by the trade union under the Nigerian democratic system if the relationship between the unions are borne in mind. A knowledge of history can be very useful in understanding the situation in present day Nigeria.
In Nigeria, a workers’ body existed before there were any real trade unions and the economic struggle was combined with political action.
The founding fathers of trade unionism in Nigeria had earlier emphasised that working class action must be both social and political, especially after the industrial revolution in the coal city of Enugu. They worked out a coherent doctrine on the position of the trade unions on what to be done. On this vital issue, the government and the trade unionists were at loggerheads. The government was against trade union political posture and against trade unionism on the Nigerian model, and against any opportunistic approach. At last, the government, however, was in favour of trade union neutrality towards a workers’ political party and clung to a reformist rather than a revolutionary doctrine, and a resolution on the trade union struggle was passed.
The Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) over the past two months has been embroiled in an avoidable rift, which is almost rendering it ineffective to speak in one voice on issues affecting the workforce.
The disagreement and division in 23 out of the 36 affiliate unions of the NLC, including the NLC itself arose from issues centering on corruption and electoral malpractices. The leadership of the NLC in most states and the nation has over the years failed to live up to workers’ expectations and denied the country of actions that would have enhanced economic growth.
The situation now in the NLC is open to question as they have changed and found themselves in different circumstances.
They now operate a democracy with opposition instead of a ‘one-party democracy’. The union no long operates a government with the consent of members but a government by sectional members. This is a serious matter. Even at the state branches, there is no democratic structure. The branches are the basic building blocks of the whole democratic structure of trade unions. All these have added up to the death of democracy in trade unions, which calls for a steady update and other restrictions on union officialdom in Nigeria.
Trade unions were designed to be highly democratic institutions and their notion of democracy was government by the members with every member of a national executive belonging to a local branch. The branches submit motions to a national conference and, if passed, they become union policy. No official of a union is free to fly in the face of rules and union officials are compelled to observe their union’s constitution. The European Trade Union (ETU) in 1961, after finding its executives guilty of electoral malpractice changed all of them.
In other countries, trade union executives are judged by their members according to their success or failure in obtaining specific objectives.
In the case of Nigeria, union executives do all fraudulent things with impunity.
Trade unions have three primary objects such as to improve members’ wages and conditions through collective bargaining, to further their members’ interests through political activity; and to provide welfare benefits, but the immediate past executive of the Rivers State NLC was very far from those objectives. This was less important to them hence the rift that tore the state branch apart.
The duty of union executives is to sign agreements on matters concerning their members and decide when to take industrial action if the need arises. Union executives are supposed to rule with the consent of their members and have in mind all the eventualities that the members have not foreseen. This boosts the power and prestige of the officials. Any union that resorts to waiting for government for action would miss many opportunities to influence government policy that affects workers.
A responsible union executive must use their judgement to represent the best interests of their members. It will not be in the good interest of workers that the NLC should operate with oppositions rather than working as ‘a one-party democracy’ recognized by the governments both at the state and national levels.
It will be absurd to see the NLC operate parallel leaderships at this time when the country is transiting to a new democratic regime. Any union leadership that exists as a dead wood or does not carry the obvious implications for union policy should be discarded. They must perform their functions to the benefits of members and not as anarchists who object to union objectives. The NLC should not allow itself degenerate to such.
Unfortunately, the objectives of NLC leaders are now open to doubt given that both national and state branches or the officials take a good deal upon themselves when dealing with governments. From what is happening among union leaders in this country one can only conclude that many trade union members do not believe the opinions voiced on their behalf. Also from the happenings recently, the NLC has been involved in deep corruption that has cut across its body system. In the face of this type of evidence, there is a case for formal opposition within the trade union government, and workers are now compelled to lose confidence in the union and its executives, which means that some workers may wish to give up their union membership. Afterall, union membership is not under compulsion and it is not reasonable to suppose that all members enrolled under these circumstances are necessarily in agreement with a union’s stated objectives.
In fact, Nigerian trade union leaders have appeared to be out of line with a very substantial proportion of their members and there is no proof of unity of interest in the union any longer. Indeed, there is a clear case to be made for the urgent reconciliation of all the aggrieved parties at all levels of the NLC before it grinds to a halt. This goes with the dictum that a house that is divided among itself will fall, just as when things fall apart the centre cannot hold. It is important to ensure a much greater unity of interest among the NLC members. A permanent opposition will appear to be irreconcilable with the very nature of the trade union, which is expected to achieve concerted action on behalf of its members with a special set of interests.
The role of government
In theory, the government is a third party to industrial relations and intervenes in special circumstances. When there is dispute between union (employees) and employers, which are the principal parties, the government owes a duty to wade in to settle their differences. Democratic governments were established in Nigeria after powerful trade unions but the third party theory was hatched under conditions in which unions had no reason to trust government in terms of freedom and better welfare package coupled with the deliberate exclusion of the working class from political life. Some special circumstances warrant government intervention into matters that otherwise would have to be best left to free collective bargaining.
The current rift in the Rivers State NLC requires government intervention to restore peace among the leaders and members. Since government regulates terms and conditions of employment in a comprehensive manner, it is also expected that it intervenes in such matters as being experienced currently in the NLC as a body of its employees. Also, since governments are not only concerned with the welfare of workers or trade union members, it is needful for them to wade into the present crisis in the union across the country in order not to divide their actions into the real executives and the oppositions.
There is no doubt that trade union members are into conflict amongst themselves both at states and national for one reason or another, so it behoves the government to call the concerned groups to a round-table discussion with a view to reconciling them so that it understands the relevant body it can deal with. Dealing with a faction of the union portrays government as taking side, which is not right in the eyes of the public. If the unions cannot settle and protect themselves and their members, government could sue for the return of peace among them. Giving preference to a particular faction will lead to endless battle and government will not be satisfied that it is dealing with a trade union, which is involved in the economic development of the nation or state.
There is a chink in the union’s armour through which the precepts of common law may penetrate but when government and the unions think that the gap between them is unbridgeable, this throws the whole issue back into doubt. The role of government in the NLC crisis is clear enough so it could vouchsafe to the union to play the game by the rules. It is the government and trade unions that run the economy in partnership, so to a certain extent, therefore, the government has the responsibility to address any dispute arising therein to balance the status of trade unions.

Shedie Okpara