The President of the Trade Union Congress (TUC), Festus Osifo, has challenged the authority of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) to negotiate salaries and allowances on behalf of Nigerian workers without the participation or consent of the TUC.
Osifo described the agreement on the ₦70,000 transport allowance recently approved by President Bola Tinubu as an aberration, insisting that both labour centres must be involved in negotiations affecting their respective members.
He made the remarks on Monday while appearing as a guest on Channels Television’s The Morning Brief, amid an ongoing disagreement between the two labour organisations over the negotiations with the Federal Government.
The dispute followed the TUC’s rejection of the six-month ₦70,000 transport allowance for public sector workers, with NLC President Joe Ajaero arguing that his organisation negotiated independently and that the TUC should not reject an agreement it did not participate in.
Reacting to Ajaero’s position, Osifo criticised his counterpart’s interpretation of labour relations and questioned his understanding of the relationship between the two labour centres.
“Listening to Ajaero again today, I really pity the Labour movement and the quality of leaders that have been inflated on the NLC.
“As I listened to Ajaero today, I was wondering if it is the same NLC that produced the likes of Adams Oshiomole, Hassan Sumonu, Ayuba Wabba and so on,” he said.
Osifo argued that International Labour Organisation (ILO) regulations did not prevent either labour centre from negotiating on behalf of its members, but maintained that both organisations must participate when negotiations involve their respective affiliates.
“There is nowhere in ILO regulations that says a trade centre cannot negotiate for its members. It is not there! It is just that if you are going to the ILO, it is tripartite- the labour, government and the employers. And in describing that, it means that the list of the TUC members is joined together with that of the NLC and submitted to the Ministry of Labour, who forwards it to the ILO.
“In that case, the two bodies must come together. We are not contesting the fact that NLC has more affiliates.
“But what we are saying is that you have about 60 affiliates while we have about 40. You cannot! You cannot negotiate for a body that is represented, for a body that has a trade union. You cannot negotiate for them on their behalf! It is not there anywhere!
“Yes, if we go to negotiations- I sit down, you sit down, and we agree,” he said.
The TUC president challenged Ajaero to produce any ILO regulation authorising one labour organisation to negotiate on behalf of another without its participation or consultation.
“He should show me in the ILO Regulations where it says one party is going to negotiate without the other one being there or consulted. He should show me! He should show Nigerians!
“ILO doctrine is that when you have more affiliates, and you are going for one of their events, it is not correct that the most represented will go and negotiate on behalf of the other one when the unions have their own umbrella.
“Let Ajaero send a document to you that proves that! It cannot be found anywhere!” Osifo said.
He also questioned Ajaero’s understanding of the Joint Public Sector Negotiating Council (JNC), arguing that the council’s constitution and procedures did not support the process through which the ₦70,000 allowance was agreed upon.
“He talked about the JNC (Joint Public Sector Negotiating Council). I don’t truly think Ajaero has read the JNC constitution. I don’t truly think he knows what the JNC means.
“Yes, you have a Masters in 1990. You cannot use a solution of yesterday to attack today’s problem.
“And that is why in industrial relations, you need to keep updating, retooling and relearning.
“First, the JNC means that when there are issues in the public sector, the JNC looks at it,” he said.
Osifo questions process behind ₦70,000 allowance
The TUC president further disputed the suggestion that the meeting which produced the ₦70,000 transport allowance represented a formal agreement of the Joint Public Sector Negotiating Council.
According to him, the meeting did not constitute a JNC sitting because the required members of the council were absent and the necessary procedures for reaching an agreement were not followed.
“But that meeting that took place was not the Council meeting. The Minister is not a member of the Council. Ajaero is not a member of the Council. The Council even has a quorum and the number of persons that must be seated to form a quorum. But at the end of the day, that meeting was not a JNC meeting. The members of JNC were not there!” he said.
Osifo also criticised the application of the difference between the previous ₦30,000 minimum wage and the new ₦70,000 minimum wage as a uniform ₦40,000 adjustment for federal workers.
He argued that the JNC should have convened to determine the appropriate consequential adjustments following the increase in the national minimum wage.
“Again, if you see the release that was sent out by those three bodies, you will discover that after the last minimum wage, we got about 33 per cent increment, and how does that work? Because from N30,000, we got N70,000.
“What you are supposed to do is that JNC will have to sit down and apply consequential adjustments.
“You know what Ajaero used JNC to do? Ajaero sent JNC a questionnaire and asked them to apply N40,000 each to Nigerian workers.
“So they took N40,000, which is the difference between N30,000 and N70,000, and applied it across board. That is why the federal workers today are earning abysmally poor.
“But I attacked him! I went to his office and told him that ‘Ajaero, this is wrong!’ What you used JNC to do is fundamentally wrong!” Osifo said.
The disagreement between the two labour centres comes as the TUC continues to demand a substantive salary increase for workers, arguing that the temporary transport allowance would not adequately address the rising cost of living.
The NLC, however, has defended its decision to negotiate separately with the Federal Government, maintaining that the TUC was neither part of the negotiations nor a signatory to the resulting agreement.
