|
The Federal First Instance Court ordered the
National Bank of Ethiopia (NBE) to “stop nuisance
actions” against the Labour Union of the bank.
The dispute began when the Bank's management issued
the notice to evict the labour Union from their
offices in Centeral Bank building along Sudan Streat
on January 23, 2009. The Labour Union shortly
contacted the Confederation of the Ethiopian Trade
Unions (CETU) with its concerns. On January 26,
2009, CETU dispatched a letter to the NBE pertaining
to the order to disband the Labour Union. In their
letter, CETU suggested a meeting in order to resolve
the fall out. That same day, at the NBE's rejection,
the Labour Union filed the charge against NBE at the
Seventh Civil Bench of the Court, on January 26,
2009. They filed charges to delay the deadline of
the dissolution of their office.
According to the charge, NBE intervened in the
internal cases of the union by discontinuing
collections of union contributions from members’
pay. The plaintiff attached supporting documents.
Its accusations, which include letters from
Industrial Federation of Banking and Insurance Trade
Unions of Ethiopia (IFBAITUE).
The defendant responded to the charge on February
17, 2009 by referring to a regulation the Council of
Ministers approved on December 30, 2009. The
regulation that governs employees of the Bank, was a
counter argument by the defendant which claimed the
regulation nullified the Union and there should not
be one in the organization. The labour union can not
sue or be sued because its legal personality has
been terminated by the regulation, the defendant
argued.
The court reached a decision on June 9, 2009, after
it scrutinized the issue based on the specific
points of arguments from the litigants. Thus, it
ruled that the regulation does not say anything
about the existence of the labour union, and the
regulation could not invalidate legal personalities
that are established on proclamation. Any such
personality shall lose its legal status by another
proclamation or through legal procedures as
stipulated in the proclamation.
Therefore, though it is the defendant’s property, it
is wrong for NBE to use the office, according to the
court’s ruling. Thus, NBE’s action to displace the
labour union, while it is not legally dissolved and
to make its members stop their monthly contributions
is harassment, the court stated.
“The association has been working with the bank’s
management for the same goal for over three
decades,” Abenezer Bewengel, chairperson of the
Union told Fortune. “We did not understand
why the management wants to quell the Union.”
Nevertheless, the court stated that collecting the
monthly contribution from members of the Union is
considered something the defendant does on its own
will.
“We are very excited,” Kabtyimer Kebede, the
president of IFBAITUE told Fortune.
NBE is not alone in the pursuit against the
existence of this union. The Ministry of Labour and
Social Affairs (MoLSA) also filed a charge claiming
that the union should not be allowed to exist. MoLSA
had taken its case to the Federal High Court on
February 19, 2009. It requested the court to rule
against the union based on the same regulation the
Council approved.
The Court examined how the regulation proposed the
dissolution the Union.which was established in 1975.
Due to the absence of proper legal procedure to
dissolve the Union on the part of MoLSA, the court
rejected the request, reads the verdict the court
passed on May 27, 2009. The Federal High Court
found this accusation unacceptable since it was not
based on law. And finally the defendant was ordered
to pay 400 Br to compensate the cost the plaintiff
has incurred due to the accusation. |
