Industrial Court dismisses Pilot employment termination claim against Aviation firm

Hon. Justice Muhammed Hamza of the Portharcourt Judicial Division of the National Industrial Court has dismissed the case filed by Pilot Woha against Caverton Helicopters Limited, challenging his employment termination for lacking merit.

Justice Zaynab ruled that the termination of Pilot Woha’s employment by Caverton Helicopters Limited is not wrongful, as the payment of three months’ salary in lieu of notice, as Mr Woha admitted suffices 2 weeks in lieu of notice as provided in the contract of service.

From facts, the Claimant- Mr Woha had submitted that he was diligent in his services to Caverton Helicopters and had never been queried in all his years of service and was appointed to several positions with an increased salary before his employment was terminated by reason of redundancy due to his activism in Union matters.

Mr Woha submitted further that the existence of a 5-year Bond signed with the Caverton Helicopters makes the termination of his employment wrongful, and averred that since the termination of his employment, the Defendant had refused to pay him his entitlement.

In defence, the Defendant- Caverton Helicopters Limited averred that the redundancy exercise not only affected Woha but also other employees and that Mr Woha was paid his full terminal benefits in accordance with the applicable conditions of service and not qualified for redundancy entitlements.

The Caverton Helicopters stated that the Bond did not in any way prevent the company from terminating Mr Woha’s employment and counter-claim for the refund of the bond, as Woha was to serve the firm for a period of 5 years from the completion of the course sponsored by the firm.

Counsel argued that parties are bound by the terms of the contract they have freely entered into, and there is no vitiating factor that rendered the Bond unenforceable, and urged the court to dismiss the Claimant’s claim in its entirety and grant the counterclaim.

In opposition, the claimant counsel argued that Caverton Helicopters failed to give Mr Woha the required Long Notice as stipulated in the Conditions of Service in view of the Bond of five (5) years before the termination of his employment.

Counsel argued that Mr Woha did not leave Caverton Helicopters but rather Caverton Helicopters that declared the services of the Claimant redundant, and not Mr Woha terminating his Contract of Service or employment. He urged the Court to hold that the Defendant is not entitled to its counterclaim.

In a well-considered judgment, the Presiding Judge, Justice Muhammed Hamza reiterated that an employee who complains that he was wrongly terminated has the onus to place before the court the terms and conditions of the contract of employment and to prove the way and manner those terms were breached by the employer.

The Court posited that where an employee accepts salary in lieu of notice of termination of his appointment, he cannot be heard to complain later that his contract of employment was not validly and properly determined.

Justice Hamza ruled that the termination of Mr Woha’s employment is not wrongful, that the payment of three months’ salary in lieu of notice, as Mr Woha admitted suffices 2 weeks in lieu of notice as provided in the contract of service.

The Court stated that Caverton Helicopters, who had elected to sponsor Mr Woha for training, cannot turn around to terminate the same midway by reason of redundancy.

“Having not terminated the Claimant’s employment under paragraph 20 of Exhibit C3, the Condition of Service for Pilot and Engineer, the Defendant loses the right to seek for the payment of unutilized portion of the Bond Agreement for the period of 44 months at the rate of $1,000.00 per month having terminated the Claimant’s employment not due to the fault of the Claimant with payment in lieu of notice without a gradual process and then negotiation of the compensation to pay to the Claimant for declaring him redundant, I find that the Defendant has not come to equity with clean hands.”  The Court ruled.