Investment tribunal frowns at AUPCTRE contempt
The Management of the Investments and Securities Tribunal, IST, has frowned at the alleged invasion of their premises by the Amalgamated Union of Public Companies, Technicians, Recreational and Entertainment Employees, AUPCTRE, in violation of an order of the National Industrial Court, that directed AUPCTRE and its officials to keep off the premises, as staff of the IST are no longer affiliated to it.
This is contained in a statement by the director, corporate affairs, Kenneth Ezea, and made available to journalists in Abuja.
"Management asserts that after reviewing the structure and orientation of AUPCTRE, it decided that affiliation of the tribunal’s staff to it was incongruent with normal practice as the AUPCTRE’s sectoral coverage and affiliates have no relationships with what the tribunal does as a judicial body," the statement reads.
He said that the National Industrial Court, NIC, had resolved two basic questions namely – whether AUPCTRE and its officers are the appropriate and/or legal union to represent the staff of the tribunal having due regard that the tribunal is a court carrying out judicial function and second; whether the AUPCTRE is the legal trade union body to represent the staff of the tribunal.
"On May 21, 2019, the NIC gave its judgment in which Justice Sanusi Kado ruled that AUPCTRE is not the legal trade union to represent members of staff of IST.
"The court also restrained the officers of AUPCTRE from parading themselves as representatives of IST staff while directing Management, “not to interfere with the staff in choosing to join appropriate union within the jurisdictional scope of the industry to which they belong” which is the judiciary.
"Management also wishes to dismiss the empty claims and spurious allegations being promoted as the grievances of the staff. It’s curious that staff should organize a protest against speculated transfers and punishments that are yet to take place. Moreover, we are not aware of any management that can single handedly override the federal government to implement a policy that has been banned.”