500 Julius Berger workers move to avoid sack

Having listened to arguments canvassed by the plaintiffs’ counsel yesterday, the presiding judge, Justice M. N. Esowe said: “The defendant is hereby ordered to maintain status quo till the ruling on the motion on notice is delivered.”Subsequently, she adjourned the suit till November 6, 2014 for ruling on the motion on notice.The applicants, Olowo Toyin […]

Having listened to arguments canvassed by the plaintiffs’ counsel yesterday, the presiding judge, Justice M. N. Esowe said: “The defendant is hereby ordered to maintain status quo till the ruling on the motion on notice is delivered.”
Subsequently, she adjourned the suit till November 6, 2014 for ruling on the motion on notice.
The applicants, Olowo Toyin and Aigbeni Matthew, representatives of  the staff of Security Department of the 1st defendant, Julius Berger Nigeria Plc, Abuja, in suit no: NICN/ABJ/270/ 2014, on September 28 dragged Julius Berger before the court over “plans to sack” the applicants.
Also joined in the suit as 2nd defendant is Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC).
At the hearing yesterday, lawyer to the defendants, Mr Dotun Sokale, informed the court that the applicants did not serve the court processes on his clients on time and wondered why an interim order was given against his clients on September 30 in their absence.
The court had on September 30 granted an interim order against the defendants to maintain status quo.
Responding, the applicants’ counsel, Mr. Omar Musa, maintained that Julius Berger had been duly served with the proof of service in the court records.
The issues submitted by the claimants to the court for determination are: “Whether by the virtue of the extant laws relating to contract of employment and the provisions of service between the parties, the 1st defendant (Julius Berger) can proceed to lay-off the claimants aforementioned without a prior formal notice and also the determination of and payment in lieu of all entitlements due to the claimants before embarking on such termination?”
The plaintiffs are seeking for an order that the defendants’ attempt, threats and plans to sack and disengage or massively terminate and replace the employment of the claimants without prior notice without determination, computation and payment of the full entitlements due to the claimants is unconstitutional, illegal, null and void.
They are also seeking an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from carrying out the purported mass sack in the Abuja Zone of the 1st defendant against the claimants.