Hon. Justice Sanda Yelwa of the Lagos Judicial Division of the National Industrial Court has declared the constructive dismissal and termination of Mrs Emelda’s employment by United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc wrongful, unlawful, and illegal.
Justice Yelwa held that the internal dispute resolution procedure contained in the UBA Employee Handbook constituted an improper obstacle to Mrs. Emelda’s constitutional right of access to Court and could not oust the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court under Section 254C of the Constitution.
The Court ordered United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc to reverse all debits, interest charges, and deductions made on the Mrs. Emelda’s account in respect of the insured consumer loan, and further ordered the bank to pay the Mrs. Emelda the sums of N179,277 as salary in lieu of notice, N78,343 as January 2020 salary, N3.3m as leave encashment for 64 days, N24,983 as leave allowance, N17,349 as 13th month bonus, N5m as general damages, and N500k as cost of action together with pre and post judgment interest at 10% per annum.
From facts, Mrs Emelda had averred that upon resumption from leave in January 2020, her work system access was blocked and her salary account was credited with terminal benefits before any formal communication of termination.
She maintained that United Bank for Africa subsequently issued her a backdated “Advise to Resign” letter dated January 2020, but delivered in January 2020, after which she tendered a resignation letter under pressure created by the Bank’s conduct.
Mrs Emelda further contended that the UBA later reversed the credited benefits, blocked her account, issued conflicting disengagement letters with varying figures and dates, and unlawfully deducted her insured consumer loan from her entitlements without first invoking the insurance policy.
In defence, the defendant, United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc, argued that Mrs Emelda’s employment was terminated strictly in accordance with the terms of her contract of employment and the Bank Employee Handbook.
The bank maintained that it lawfully paid her terminal benefits, including payment in lieu of notice, and subsequently deducted her outstanding indebtedness pursuant to the loan agreement and provisions of the Employee Handbook.
United Bank for Africa further submitted that Mrs Emelda failed to exhaust the internal grievance and mediation procedure contained in the Employee Handbook before approaching the Court and contended that the employer reserves the right to terminate employment for any reason once contractual terms are complied with.
In opposition, Emelda’s counsel, Olabamiji Adeyeye Esq, argued that the conduct of United Bank for Africa (UBA) amounted to constructive dismissal and unfair labour practice as the bank had predetermined Mrs Emelda’s exit before any lawful termination process.
Counsel argued that the blocking of Mrs Emelda’s system access, the payment and subsequent reversal of terminal benefits, the issuance of contradictory disengagement letters, and the unlawful deductions from Mrs Emelda’s account established bad faith, financial intimidation, and procedural irregularity on the part of the Defendant.
In a well-considered judgment, the Presiding Judge, Hon. Justice Sanda Yelwa, held that where the access to court is a guaranteed right under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, a provision in any enactment which tends to restrict or limit the easy access of an aggrieved person to court to ventilate the grievance at the appropriate time, is usually construed strictly by courts.
The Court stated that the evidence before it clearly established that United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc had predetermined Mrs Emelda’s exit before complying with lawful termination procedures, having locked Mrs Emelda out of her work system, credited terminal benefits before disengagement, issued a backdated resignation advice letter, and subsequently reversed the said benefits.
The Court held that the resignation of Mrs Emelda was not voluntary but induced by the conduct of United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc and therefore amounted to constructive dismissal and unfair labour practice. The Court further held that termination is only effective upon valid communication and that failure to properly communicate termination rendered the process defective.
The Court held that the termination of Mrs Emelda’s employment was wrongful and amounted to constructive dismissal arising from the conduct of the Bank, including locking her out of the work system, issuing a backdated “Advise to Resign” letter, and crediting and subsequently reversing terminal benefits.