LABOUR LAW — Employment Contract — Disciplinary Procedure — Summary Dismissal — Whether Written Queries and Replies Alone Can Prove Gross Misconduct Under a Collective Agreement
Ratio Decidendi
Per Onnoghen, JSC, in Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc (2011) NLC-123-68-2003(SC) at pp. 9—10; Paras D—A:
"To say that whenever an employee is alleged to have committed acts of misconduct in relation to Article 5 supra he must be charged to court where the allegation is to be proved to the satisfaction of the court before any disciplinary action can be taken against him despite being issued with queries and his replies thereto is to stretch the principle of fair hearing to an absurd end, particularly in view of the provisions of Article 5(d) of Exhibit P.18."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that an employer need not charge an employee to court to prove misconduct before taking disciplinary action, particularly where the conditions of service provide for queries and replies. Requiring court proof would stretch fair hearing to an absurd end. The principle applies in employment disciplinary proceedings. It ensures that internal disciplinary procedures are respected. The principle reflects the employer’s power to discipline. It prevents unnecessary court proceedings. The court must recognize the sufficiency of queries and replies. The principle provides guidance on disciplinary procedures.