Court nullifies ADR clause in UBA staff handbook

The National Industrial Court, Adamawa Division, has struck down
an Alternative Dispute Resolution clause in the United Bank for
Africa Group’s Staff Handbook which barred an ex-employee from
seeking legal remedies against the bank in court until a prescribed
internal dispute resolution mechanism has been exhausted.

The court, in a judgment by Justice Nelson Ogbuanya, declared
that the ADR clause was unconstitutional, holding that the bank
could not lawfully barred an ex-employee from litigating a dispute
in a court of law.

The judge made the pronouncement in the suit filed against UBA
by one Yusuf Ayangbade, who was a former Manager with the bank.

The judge held, “A close review of the Paragraph 6.7 of Exhibit
A (UBA Staff Handbook) would reveal that it tends to compel the
ex-employee to first return to the employer with complaints and
then exhaust an uncertain procedure of Alternative Dispute
Resolution within and outside the employer’s setting before
exercising his/her right to resort to court to litigate the
dispute.

“I, however, take the view that a major hallmark of ADR is its
voluntary posture and as a dispute resolution mechanism, an ADR
clause should provide a clear and ascertainable roadmap to
effective resolution of the matter between disputing parties.

“Where an ADR clause rather provides an uncertain procedure
inhibiting effective dispute resolution, it has failed in its
primary mission to provide alternative to litigation.

“It is, therefore, my humble but sustained view and I hold that
such an uncertain and clumsy clause of ADR is certainly not an
effective dispute resolution clause as envisaged by the promoters
of ADR as a panacea for congested and often distasteful outcome of
litigation.”

The judge described the UBA ADR clause as an instrument of
doubtful efficacy, adding that it was not in tandem with best
practice of labour relations “and can be akin to compelling
divorced couple to return to their erstwhile matrimonial bed as a
forum for resolution of alimony issue.”

Justice Ogbuanya held, “Accordingly, to insist that an
ex-employee must submit to this kind of forum even fraught with an
uncertain dispute resolution procedure, will unwittingly shackle
the claimant’s constitutional right to gain access to court to
ventilate his grievance against his ex-employer, the defendant.

“Such unwarranted restrictive provision is liable to be struck
down. Accordingly, I find and hold that the provisions of Paragraph
6.7 of the UBA Group Staff Handbook Policy Document No: HRG: 001,
dated June 2010, constitutes an improper obstacle in the way of the
claimant, being an ex-employee of the defendant, to accessing the
court to ventilate and litigate his dispute with the defendant, his
ex-employer, before this court, and as such, I hereby affirm the
competency of this suit and hasten to invoke the jurisdiction of
the court to entertain same.”