Okeke, 41 others lose N200 million suit against Nigerian Breweries Plc

 

MAKURDI – Mr. Batholomew Okeke and 41 others pursuing a case of breach of contract against Nigerian Breweries Plc have been ordered to pay cost to the tune of N100,000 to the defendant, following failure to prove their case against the defendant in their N200 million suit.

Okeke and 41 others, former employees of Consolidated Breweries Plc had filed a suit against Nigerian Breweries claiming the sum of 200,000,000 as general and aggravated damages for hardship and breach of contract.

Justice Isaac Essien of the Makurdi division of the National Industrial Court of N igeria held that Mr. Batholomew Okeke and 41 others’ acceptance of their retirement benefits from Consolidated Breweries constitutes a bar to their claim, and the summary of the computation which gave a lump sum of monies to them as their terminal benefits was in perfect compliance with their collective agreement.

“On the whole the claim of the claimant in this suit fails and are accordingly dismissed. The claimants shall pay a cost of N100,000 to the defendant”, Justice Isaac Essien declared, stressing that , “where an employee receives his terminal benefits after his employment is brought to an end, he cannot be heard to complain later that his contract of employment was not properly terminated. This is because the acceptance of payment by the employee renders the determination mutual”, the judge said.

According to Justice Isaac Essien, the case against the defendant must fail as there was no basis for the award. From facts, the claimants- Mr. Batholomew Okeke and 41 others had asked for an order directing Nigerian Breweries forthwith to pay the claimants the outstanding balance of their entitlement in line with the Employee Handbook and collective agreements.

They posited that Nigerian Breweries is deemed to have taken over all the assets and liabilities of Consolidated Breweries PLC, and following the collective agreement with their union which authorised the restructuring carried out by Consolidated Breweries which was to result in the down-sizing of the workforce, the company failed to calculate their gratuity and redundancy benefits for the purpose of paying whichever is higher and other entitlements in line with the collective agreement.

In defense, the defendant- Nigerian Breweries Plc accepted that it acquired Consolidated Breweries Plc in December 2014 but never inherited Mr. Batholomew Okeke and 41 others as its employees, and posited that the claimants had left the employment of Consolidated Breweries Plc more than a year before Nigerian Breweries acquired Consolidated Breweries and therefore had nothing to do with them and relied on the letters of termination of employment issued to them.

The company maintained that Mr. Batholomew Okeke and 41 others have collected their entitlements and urged the court to dismiss the case in its entirety for lacking substance.

Delivering the judgment, the presiding Judge, Justice Isaac Essien held that Abi Avamesesule- (40th claimant) retired upon the attainment of the mandatory retirement age, and there was never an employment relationship between him and the Nigerian Breweries for which any claim could be founded.

Justice Essien declared that the letters of termination tendered through Exhibits elicited compliance with the required notice to terminate Mr. Batholomew Okeke and 41 others’ employment, and they failed to lead any evidence to show that their termination was in breach of any term of employment.

The case of the claimants is that they were employees of Benue Breweries Limited at its Makurdi plant until 2021, when Consolidated Breweries PLC took over Benue Breweries Limited and the claimants were retained as its employees.

Later on, the defendant Nigerian Breweries acquired Consolidated Breweries in 2013 and they were issued letters of absorption and their services were transferred to the defendant. The 40th and 42nd claimants’ services were terminated and as such they were not issued absorption letters.

The defendant did not give any reason for the termination and there was no indication of misconduct or query or disciplinary action taken against them that may have led to the termination. That the defendant did not compensate them adequately and they ought to have been declared redundant. That the defendant failed to include the three (3) months basic salary in lieu of notice, cash gifts, cash value of Nine (9) crates of beer and in some cases, 1 plasma television.

The other claimants state that as former staff of Benue Breweries Limited, they were entitled to improved conditions of service in form of company scholarship, meal subsidy, end of year gifts, increased probationary period as well as redundancy benefits whenever declared redundant or service gratuity whichever is higher.

Claimants place reliance on the defendant hand book and the collective agreement entered into with their union and the defendants. The claimant position is also that following a collective agreement with the claimants union which authorised the restructuring carried on by the defendant which was to result in down-sizing of the workforce, the defendant introduced a safety net for its staff that will be affected and eventually laid off on the basis of redundancy, so that their exit will not totally affect them but also provide resources to start profitable ventures.

The claimants were eventually issued restructuring letters by which the defendant terminated their appointments without recourse to the agreement reached with the union of the claimants and the defendant. That the defendant failed to calculate the gratuity and redundancy benefits of the claimants for the purpose of paying whichever is higher.
They also claim that they are also entitled to ex gratia packages of three months free products to be monetized, cash gift depending on service years and three months medical cover for claimants and their dependents. In the case of the claimants, having not accessed the medical cover, their medical allowance, was not to be deducted from their total entitlement, which the defendant went ahead to deduct from their entitlement. They also alleged that the defendant purportedly calculated their gratuity without mathematically itemizing their entitlements in line with the collective agreements but simply estimated figures arbitrarily.

The claimants alleged that they ought to be paid in accordance with the agreement between the defendant and NUFBTE reached on 24th and 25th of April, 2013 for the services rendered to the defendant. That the defendant failed to calculate their entitlement under the agreed redundancy benefits or service gratuity.

Finally the claimant stated that the defendant ought to have itemized and mathematically worked out the claimant’s redundancy and or gratuity for the purpose of paying the one that is higher has led to the underpayment of the claimants.

On the other hand, it is the position of the defendant that the claimants were employed by Benue Brewery and the appointment of the 41st and 42nd claimants were terminated by Benue Brewery Limited and the 40th Claimant retired under Benue Brewery Limited.
The defendant accepts that it acquired Consolidated Breweries Plc in December, 2014 but never inherited the claimants as its employees. “It is the position of the defendant that the claimants had left the employment of Consolidated Breweries Plc more than a year before Nigerian Breweries acquired Consolidated Breweries and therefore had nothing to do with the claimants and relied on the letters of termination issued to the claimants”, the judge said.

According to the judge, the claimant denied terminating the employment of the 40th to 42nd claimants and that it was Benue Brewery Limited that terminated the employment of the 41st and 42nd Claimants while the 40th Claimant having attained the mandatory retirement age was retired as far back as 6th of August, 2012. That the 40th claimant was terminated in accordance with the contract of employment and the 41st claimant had already reached retirement age.

“The defendant position is that they only took over Consolidated Breweries Plc in December, 2014 when the claimants were no longer in the employment of Consolidated Breweries Plc, that it was Consolidated Breweries Plc that terminated their appointments before the defendant took over Consolidated Breweries Plc.

“As shown in the redundancy letters issued to the claimants. That the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 16th and 37th claimants were issued letters of termination of appointment while the 34th claimant was issued letter of retirement. The termination letters issued to the claimants clearly indicated that they were paid what was higher in the circumstance as it was clearly written- Redundancy pay (higher of Redundancy benefits and service gratuity). They were also given Ex-gratia packages to cover for their gifts as stated in the agreement filed by the claimants and that medical allowances were not deducted from their exit pay as clearly shown in their termination letters.

“They state that it was Consolidated Breweries Plc who did the calculation in the accounts separated as A & B which the claimants collected, proceeded to collect their pension from their Pension administrators and as a matter of fact, the claimants did not complain to Consolidated Breweries Plc until it was taken over by the defendant only to realise that their pensions were wrongly calculated when they had finished spending the money.

“That the 1st to 39th claimant were paid all their due entitlement and those that were indebted to the company had their debts deducted from their entitlement. The defendant position is that in the restructuring letters and the gratuity statement of account, the major items were mentioned therein while each of the claimants was shown what his due was at the time letters were issued out to them. This represents the contending issue between the parties in this action”, Justice Isaac Essien said.