Industrial Court Dismisses Wrongful Suspension Claim Against Firm
Hon. Justice Zaynab Bashir of the Portharcourt Judicial Division of the National Industrial Court has dismissed the allegation of wrongful suspension and entitlement claims filed by one Mr. Innocent against his employer Ocean Marine Solutions for lacking merit.
The Court held that an employer reserves the right to investigate an allegation against an employee and can equally suspend the employee in the process of investigation.
Justice Zaynab stated that Mr. Innocent’s suspension had not been concluded and not unduly protracted at the time Mr. Innocent instituted the case and that it was Mr. Innocent himself who truncated the process of investigation and he was not entitled to the reliefs sought.
On Mr. Innocent claim for N20m for damages for alleged libel, Justice Zaynab stated that the burden borne by Mr. Innocent is to establish that what was published by the firm about him is untrue and upon a perusal of all that has been placed before the court, it is clear to all and sundry that Mr. Innocent was indeed placed on indefinite suspension by the firm as can be seen on Exhibit tendered.
From facts, the claimant- Mr. Innocent had contended that he was suspended from his employment without a fair hearing and in breach of the Ocean Marine Solutions staff handbook because prior to the suspension, he was not accorded a query and was not asked to put his defence in writing.
He sought a declaration that having worked for the firm for more than 14 years, he is entitled to all the terminal benefits stated in the Staff Handbook among others.
Mr. Innocent averred further that he was performing his duties credibly until he was placed on suspension (without pay) with effect from August 8, 2022 without being issued with any query or notice in writing and that his name was published and pasted in conspicuous places informing the public that he had been placed on suspension, and sought for the payment of N20m as damages for libel
Upon cross-examination, Mr. Innocent confirmed that he had not received any letter terminating his appointment while admitting that he was paid salary for August 2022, the company was not owing him any salary when he came to court.
In defence, the defendant- Ocean Marine Solutions posited that the information contained in the publication was the truth and it was made to protect the firm against unsanctioned transactions uninformed members of the public might enter with the Claimant on its behalf during the period of the suspension.
The learned Counsel to Ocean Marine Solutions, Eberechi Adele SAN with U.O. Omo-Udofia Esq submitted that the suspension of Mr. Innocent did not breach any term of the contract of employment Mr. Innocent had with the firm. The Counsel contended that the outcome of the disciplinary committee hearings would have been a foregone conclusion if the process had not been truncated by Mr. Innocent resorting to litigation, and urged the Court to dismiss the case.
In opposition, the claimant counsel contended that Ocean Marine Solutions could not exercise its choice to adopt a different procedure outside the one stated in the staff handbook and disciplinary policy because the contract of employment is contractual and parties are bound by it, and urged the Court to grant the reliefs sought.
In a well-considered judgment, the presiding Judge, Justice Zainab Bashar reiterated that an employer has the right to suspend an employee for the purpose of investigation, and by the provision of the Staff Handbook, the issuance of the query was made discretional.
Justice Zaynab stated that the issue of fair hearing will only become valid when Ocean Marine Solutions unduly protracts Mr. Innocent’s suspension or eventually terminate Mr. Innocent’s employment without him being afforded an opportunity to be heard.
The Court held that the contention of Mr. Innocent that his right to fair hearing was breached upon being issued with a letter of indefinite suspension as the said issuance is not in breach of the firm’s handbook or Disciplinary procedure.
Furthermore, on Mr. Innocent’s claim for terminal benefits, the Court stated that Mr. Innocent has not alleged that his employment has been terminated and that he has applied for his terminal benefit which has been refused.
“Consequently, there is no basis for the consideration or grant of the said declaration.” The Court ruled.
