STRIKES, FORFEITURE OF ENTITLEMENTS AND THE CONUNDRUM OF THE 21ST CENTURY WORKPLACE

Abstract

This article evaluates the ambit of forfeiture of entitlements in the context of strikes in the workplace. It acknowledges that the right to strike inures in favour of workers’ trade unions, and the invocation of strikes give rise to an array of liabilities on the part of striking workers. It also harnessed the “no-work, no-pay” rule in labour law jurisprudence, tracing its evolution from Common Law to entrenchment in domestic labour regulations of diverse jurisdictions across the globe. This article finds, inter alia, that the notion of forfeiture of entitlements in the context of strikes is rooted in the suspension theory of strike which resonates in section 43(1)(a) Trade Disputes Act 1976. Aside from indicating that this statutory provision formed the fulcrum of forfeiture of entitlements in the context of strikes in Nigeria, it is also shown that the ambit of the statutory provision transcends the much-touted “no-work, no-pay” rule to the issue of forfeiture of remunerations, other than wages or salaries, for the period of strikes as well as the forfeiture of rights dependent on continuity of employment. Drawing from the prescriptions of the International Labour Organization and the legislative stance in some States, this article recommends, inter alia, for the alteration of domestic labour regulations in Nigeria to allow for striking workers to take up temporary employment in another workplace during the period of a strike, and to also allow for employers of striking workers to temporarily engage replacement labour for the duration of strikes. It also recommends that the “no-work, no-pay” rule be altered to cater for all scenarios of strikes, including inchoate strikes assuming the nature of work of “work-to-rule” or “go-slow.”