THE NIGERIAN LABOUR ACT 1971: LOOKING AHEAD.

Many believe that the Labour Act 1971 is long due for review. One, for its long years of enactment. Two, for not being in tune with the current realities in the Nigerian labor market and international best labor practices and standards.

I do strongly share in these above sentiments.

I read an article that there is an attempt by the Association of Chartered Institute of Personnel Management and KPMG to seek the review of the Labour Act 1971. This attempt is laudable and should be supported by all stakeholders.

However, the review should be fashioned to fit the realities of the labor market: employers, employees, trade unions, governments, and even the job seekers' experience(s) and realities in the Nigerian society. It should not be another adaptation of law in another jurisdiction hook, line, and sinker - typical of some reviewed and enacted laws in Nigeria in recent times.

The sought review to the Labour Act 1971 should start with the review of the phrase, ‘‘Labour Act’’

The preamble to the Labour Act 1971 reads,

‘‘An Act to repeal and replace the Labour Code Act and consolidate the law relating to Labor.’’

Meanwhile, Section 91 of the Act defined ‘‘workers’’ as

‘‘Any person who has entered into or works under a contract with an employer, whether the contract is for manual labour or clerical work or is expressed or implied or oral or written, and whether it is a contract of service or a contract personally to execute any work or labour, but does not include-

(a) any person employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer's business, or

(b) persons exercising administrative, executive, technical or professional functions as public officers or otherwise, or

(c) members of the employer's family, or

(d) representatives, agents and commercial travelers in so far as their work is carried on outside the permanent workplace of the employer's establishment; or

(e) any person to whom articles or materials are given out to be made up, cleaned, washed, altered, ornamented, finished, repaired or adapted for sale in his own home or on other premises not under the control or management of the person who gave out the articles or the material; or

(f) any person employed in a vessel or aircraft to which the laws regulating merchant shipping or civil aviation apply’’

First, Section 91 obviously, narrowly defined' ''workers'' and created exceptions. Meaning those exempted are not covered under the Act.

Secondly, by extension, the narrow interpretation contradicts the purpose of the Act; to consolidate the law relating to labour. This can be overlooked, coming from the past.

However, the same can not be said now. ''Labour'' has been given a wider and broader definition and perception to include both physical and mental work undertaken for some monetary reward and includes those excluded in the Labour Act 1971.

The phrase ''Labour Act'' should be changed to reflect specifically those the law seeks to cater to in Section 91. In the alternative, the exclusions should be expunged and the definition of ''workers'' should be extended to accommodate those presently excluded in the Act.

This is the only way the Labour Act 1971 can be given its true intent and purpose of consolidating the law relating to labor.

What is your take? Leave your opinion(s) and suggestion(s) in the comment section and let us expand the discussion.

#toyourpeaceandjoy. #NLA1971review.