CRITICALLY DISCUSS THE ROLES AND CONTRIBUTIONS OF FEDERAL MINISTRY OF LABOUR ON LABOUR MATTERS AND TRADE DISPUTES IN NIGERIA

CRITICALLY DISCUSS THE ROLES AND CONTRIBUTIONS OF FEDERAL MINISTRY OF LABOUR ON LABOUR MATTERS AND TRADE DISPUTES IN NIGERIA

INTRODUCTION

Trade dispute appears to be a major problem hindering development in developing countries in general and, specifically in Nigeria. The oil and gas industry being the source of over 90 percent of foreign earnings in Nigeria has disappointingly been hard hit by labour disputes arising from industrial conflicts. Worst still, the procedures for conflict management in Nigeria, which draws from labour reforms, have been noted to be grossly characterized by preventive delays before and after mediation, conciliation, and arbitration. These characteristics no doubt imply untimely management of industrial conflicts.

It is on record that industries, and Nigeria at large have been battling with the management of industrial conflicts since the colonial era. The enormity of such conflicts has led to the enactment of the 1976 Trade Disputes Act, which was amended in both 1977 and 1990. The Act provides internal and external dispute settlement machineries including, voluntary and compulsory procedures. The Act requires that within seven days, the declared conflicts should be resolved through the application of internal machineries, the failure of which makes external machineries necessary. Such external machineries include mediation and conciliation groups, the industrial arbitration panel (IAP), and the national industrial court (NIC). Unfortunately however, Nigeria has not had significant solutions to industrial conflicts. According to some authors, the observed situation in the management of conflicts in Nigeria can be attributed to such factors as corruption, favouritism, and bias.

Overview of industrial conflict

Poole and Warner (1998) summarised these features as presented in figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Perspectives on Trade dispute

 Source: Poole and Warner, 1998: 756

Unitary perspectives, as analysed by Fox (1974), are so-called because they assumed a fundamental unity of interest among members of an organization, and thus believe that conflict does not exist.  Where conflict arises, it can be explained as the outcome of mistakes or the presence of ‘trouble makers’.  Mistakes could arise from poor communication.

Pluralist theorists observe that workers and managers have divergent interests over the level of wages, for example.  This divergence of interests often leads to the formation of trade unions.  We note that pluralism has two main forms, including: industrial relations pluralists (Fox, 1974; Hyman, 1989), involving relationship between management and unions; and, political exchange pluralists who examine the effects of relations on conflict outside the enterprise.

Radicalism was the product of the late 1960s and early 1970s when worker militancy was at its height in capitalist countries.  They believe that conflicts can be managed, and under certain circumstances, mutual trust can develop in the organisation.

The transaction cost economics perspective was advanced by Edwards (1992).  This school argues that ‘indeterminancy’ is inevitable in any contract: it is almost impossible to specify in advance exactly all the conditions necessary for complete compliance with a contract.  An attempt to monitor a contract compliance is costly.  Such monitor can lead to trade disputes and the associated work stoppages.

Another interesting perspective or approach to industrial conflict, referred to as the theory of labour regulation, agrees with the beliefs of radicals and economists that conflict is inherent in the organisation of work itself  (Edwards, 1986).  Conflicts in working environments occur because the work process is organised not by workers but by managers.

The current discussions on issues concerning industrial conflicts has been based on either or a combination of these perspectives or schools of thought.  This presentation however, draws heavily from the economists point of view.

Robinson (1972) believes the existence of conflict in any organization.  He identifies the dimensions of conflict as: (i) threats or disputes over a territory, whether the boundaries of the territory are physical, social or work boundaries; and, (ii) threats to values, goals, and policies, as well as threats to behaviour.  Robinson (1972) also argues that not all conflicts are bad and not all cooperation is good, though people tend to view conflict as a negative force operating against successful achievement of group or organizational goals.  Conflict can be harmful but may also serve some potentially positive functions, depending on the types of groups within and among which it occurs.  Not every conflict benefits groups, and conflict may not serve the functions expected of it for all groups (Coser and Rosenberg, 1964).

The integrative and disintegrative effects of conflict have been summarised as follows.  Conflicts may:

1. be harmful to individuals or groups
2. have positive results
3. help define and sharpen organizational issues to improve management decisions
4. help gain recognition for a group
5. increase bitterness, alienation, and divisiveness
6. increase unity, cohesion, and solidarity within a group
7. strengthen group boundaries
8. aid in the formation of a new group
9. weaken or destroy a group
10. increase tension within or between groups
11. result in restructuring a group
12. lead to alliances with other groups
13. disrupt normal channels of cooperation) become violent

(Robinson and Clifford, 1974; Coser, 1964)

As can be observed from the above summary, there are many positive aspects of conflicts.  However, conflicts can be destructive in groups, especially when they consume individual members’ energies.  Conflicts can also interfere with group process and create interpersonal hostilities in such a way that group members may become unwilling or unable to work with one another.

In the following section, we summarise the structure of trade dispute in Nigeria.  The aim is to analyse the major consequences or implications industrial conflicts in the country.

Roles  of Federal Ministry of Employment, Labour and Productivity

The Federal Ministry of Employment, Labour and Productivity which was established in 1937 by the colonial authorities and inherited by indigenous administrations after independence in 1960. It was established to enforce labour legislation, advise government on trade union development. Federal Government Gazette Notice No 1205 of 1979, states some of the functions of the ministry as follows;

1. Condition of Employment
2. Industrial Relations
3. Factory inspection
4. Trade Unions, including registration of Trade Unions
5. Central Labour        Organization        on cooperative matters
6. Supervision of the following bodies

188

• Industrial Arbitration Panel
• National Industrial Court
• National Institute for Labour studies (established in 1987 and located in Ilorin)

7. Maintenance of Relations with the following bodies
   • Organization of African Trade Union Unity (ATUU)
   • International Labour

Organization (ILO)

• Nigeria Labour Congress
• Nigeria Employers Consultative Association.

Presently the ministry has ten departments included, are the departments of Industrial Relations, saddled with the responsibility to promote industrial harmony, through the encouragement of voluntary collective bargaining, between workers and employers. The department of wages and productivity, which ensure that proper wages are paid and employee are not enslaved. Then the department of labour inspection and training, this section has the duties of inspecting factories to ensure that best practices are followed, and also provide training for employers and employees on how to handle disputes.

DOWNLOAD COMPLETE PROJECT MATERIAL

CRITICALLY DISCUSS THE ROLES AND CONTRIBUTIONS OF FEDERAL MINISTRY OF LABOUR ON LABOUR MATTERS AND TRADE DISPUTES IN NIGERIA