Introduction
Disciplinary procedures are essential in a workplace to ensure strict compliance with basic legal requirements. Failure to adopt disciplinary procedures will lead to a wrongful disciplinary process and its unfavourable outcome. Wrongful disciplinary procedures leading to sanctions such as suspensions, termination, or dismissal may be successfully challenged in court by the aggrieved employees. Where the court finds the employer guilty, damages can be awarded against the employer. Damages doesn’t have to be only monetary. An organisation can suffer reputational damages.
The disciplinary power of employers over its employees is long established in labour law. It is a right the courts recognises and respect. The court only interferes where the disciplinary process is unlawful, unjust, unfair or breaches the basic principle of fair hearing.
Discipline and disciplinary procedures
The Human Resources Department often handles disciplinary matters in an organisation. The department coordinates the disciplinary process of its organisation. The discipline and disciplinary procedures of organisations are often codified in the following documents:
- Contracts of employment
- Employee Handbook
- Disciplinary policy and sanction grid
1. CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT
A contract of employment defines the rights and obligations of the parties. It is a legally binding agreement between an employer and an employee in which the employee agrees to work under the supervision and authority of the employer in return for wages or salary. A contract of employment can also have provisions relating to disciplinary matters such as termination and dismissal on gross misconduct, suspension pending investigation into alleged misconducts, etc.
2. EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK
Employee handbook is very important workplace document. It does not only codify the right and obligations of the employer and employees, it also communicates important workplace policies, operating procedures, including rules and regulations.
3. DISCIPLINARY POLICY AND SANCTION GRID
Rather than having a chapter in the employee handbook for discipline and disciplinary procedure in the Employee Handbook, some organisations choose to have a stand-alone policy on discipline and disciplinary procedures.
Effect Of Non-Compliance with the Established Disciplinary Procedures
Disciplinary authority is fundamental to the effective management of employment relationships. Employers must [1]be able to sanction misconduct in order to preserve workplace order and productivity. However, Nigerian law firmly circumscribes the manner in which disciplinary powers may be exercised. Where an employer has established disciplinary procedures whether by statute, regulations, conditions of service, or incorporated staff handbook, such procedures are binding and must be strictly followed.
Disciplinary procedures derive their binding force from statutes, subsidiary legislation, public service rules, conditions of service, or contractual documents incorporated into the employment. Once incorporated, these procedures cease to be discretionary guidelines and become enforceable obligations. In Olaniyan v. University of Lagos, the Supreme Court made this position clear when it held that:
“Thus where there were clear statutory provisions covering the relationship of master and servant the only way to terminate the contract of service of the servant is by complying with the procedure laid down in the said statutory provisions.”
The court further emphasised that:
““In my opinion any public body charged with the power to employ staff must act within the Statute creating it and within other statutory provisions governing its procedure for employment, dismissal or termination of its staff under the contract of service”
The Court below also correctly interpreted the ratio decidendi in the case of Shitta-Bey v. The Federal Civil Service Commission (1981) 1 S.C.40.
“The case” the court continued “however is illuminating in that it distinguishes the difference between an ordinary relationship of master and servant with the relationship of master and servant in the context of the Civil Service which is governed by statutory provisions”.
Disciplinary Procedures and the Right to Fair Hearing
Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) guarantees the right to fair hearing. The Supreme Court has consistently linked compliance with disciplinary procedures to observance of the rules of natural justice. In Garba v. University of Maiduguri, [2] Obaserki JSC, held:
“I agree that court or other tribunal can be guilty of a denial of the right to fair hearing but persons and authorities who assume jurisdiction where they have none are equally guilty. By the emphasis of fair hearing in the provisions of subsections (1) and (4) of section 33 of the Constitution, it is my view that the necessity for compliance with all the rules of natural justice audi alteram partem, and nemo judex in causa sua, i.e. the twin rules or pillars of natural justice have been adequately indicated, emphasised and expressly stated.
Fair hearing is therefore not only a common law requirement in Nigeria but also a statutory and a constitutional requirement. The rules of natural justice must be observed in any adjudication process by any court or tribunal established by law.”
Fair hearing requires that an employee be informed of the allegations against him, afforded adequate opportunity to respond, and disciplined strictly in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Failure to observe these requirements renders the disciplinary process procedurally defective and unjust.[3]
In Ceylon University v. Fernando, [4] the Privy Council opined thus:
“What are the requirement of natural justice in a case of this kind’ First, I think that the person accused should know the nature of the accusation made; secondly, that he should be given an opportunity to state his case; and thirdly, of course, that the tribunal should act in good faith.”
where a statute or regulation prescribes a disciplinary procedure, it must be followed to the letter.
In Shitta-Bey v. Federal Public Service Commission, the Supreme Court held:
“Where a statute has prescribed the procedure for the discipline or removal of a public officer, that procedure must be strictly complied with; otherwise, the purported removal is null and void and of no effect”[5]. The Court emphasised that statutory provisions governing discipline are mandatory, not optional.
Similarly, in Olaniyan v. University of Lagos, the Supreme Court held that failure to comply with the disciplinary procedure prescribed by the university regulations rendered the termination unlawful.[6] The Court reaffirmed that statutory employment enjoys special protection, and disciplinary actions taken in breach of procedure are void.
The effects of non-compliance are that the disciplinary action is rendered null, void, and of no legal effect. Secondly, such non-compliance constitutes wrongful or unlawful termination. Courts may also award damages for breach of contract and, in appropriate cases, compensation for unfair labour practices. Finally, reinstatement with full benefits remains the primary remedy in statutory employment.
According to Emiola, disciplinary procedures serve as safeguards against arbitrariness and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice in employment relations.[7]
Similarly, Uvieghara argues that non-compliance with laid-down disciplinary procedures fundamentally undermines the legitimacy of employer sanctions and exposes employers to liability.[8]
Conclusion
The effect of non-compliance with established disciplinary procedures under Nigerian law is both settled and far-reaching. Whether arising from statute or contract, disciplinary procedures impose binding obligations on employers. Nigerian courts, relying on constitutional principles and contractual doctrines, have consistently held that disciplinary actions taken in breach of established procedures are legally unsustainable.
Employers must therefore ensure strict adherence to disciplinary frameworks, as discipline exercised outside the bounds of law and due process will not be upheld by the courts.
[1][1] Olaniyan v. University of Lagos (1985) 2. NWLR (Pt. 9) 619 (SC)
[2] Garba v University of Maiduguri (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 584
[3] Bamgboye v. University of Ilorin (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 622) 290.
[4] Ceylon University v. Fernando (1960) 1 WLR 223 at 232
[5] Shitta-Bey v. Federal Public Service Commission (1981) 1 NWLR (Pt. 40) 1.
[6] Olaniyan v. University of Lagos (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599.
[7] A. Emiola, Nigerian Labour Law (4th edn, Ogbomosho Press) 214–216.
[8] E.E. Uvieghara, Labour Law in Nigeria (Malthouse Press) 178–181.
Lead Partner, EKO SOLICITORS & ADVOCATES
Bessie Obort Ofuka
Graduate Trainee, EKO SOLICITORS & ADVOCATES
Faith Ogunleye
Graduate Trainee, EKO SOLICITORS & ADVOCATES