Air Peace Dispute: Union Rights Must Not Become a Licence for Coercion

The ongoing dispute between Air Peace and aviation unions has raised broader questions about workers’ rights, freedom of association, industrial action and the protection of the travelling public.

Frances Akinjole, General Secretary of the Air Transport Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (ATSSAN), reportedly said in an interview that only two airlines in Nigeria permit unionisation and cited Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution in support of the unions’ position.

But the controversy should not be viewed solely through the lens of labour versus management.

Akinjole reportedly described Air Peace as “the champion of bad airlines in Nigeria”. Such a statement is difficult to regard as a conventional labour argument. If there is evidence that Air Peace has breached labour regulations, aviation rules or other statutory obligations, the evidence should be submitted to the appropriate authorities.

A sweeping public condemnation does not, on its own, establish a legal or regulatory violation.

The Constitution and Freedom of Association

Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, provides citizens with the right to assemble freely and associate with others. It specifically recognises the right to form or belong to a political party, trade union or other association for the protection of one’s interests.

There is no question that workers should have the freedom to organise and pursue legitimate collective interests.

However, the words “form or belong” are significant. The constitutional provision does not state that every worker must belong to a particular union.

The National Human Rights Commission recognises freedom of association as including the right to freely form or belong to a trade union, subject to the Constitution and applicable law. Labour, employment, trade union and industrial relations disputes also fall within the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria.

That legal distinction becomes particularly important in the Air Peace dispute.

Can Workers Be Compelled to Join a Strike?

Reports indicate that aviation unions picketed Air Peace facilities in Lagos, Abuja and other locations, disrupting flight operations and affecting passengers.

The unions reportedly cited grievances including alleged anti-union practices and financial obligations.

Air Peace, on the other hand, has maintained that its workers do not want to participate in the unions’ action and that some employees protested against being dragged into the dispute.

If that account is accurate, then the question is unavoidable: can a union compel workers who are not its members to participate in its industrial dispute?

Section 43 of the Trade Unions Act permits peaceful picketing where people gather at or near a workplace to peacefully obtain or communicate information or persuade people to work or refrain from working.

But the same provision places limits on such conduct. It prohibits subjecting another person to constraint or restriction of personal freedom during the process of persuasion. It also states that a union or its members must not, during a strike, compel a non-member to join the strike or obstruct highways, institutions or premises for that purpose.

In other words, union rights have boundaries.

The right to unionise is not a right to coerce. Peaceful picketing does not mean intimidation, and the right to strike does not automatically include the right to force non-members to participate.

Most importantly, a labour dispute should not become a mechanism for punishing innocent passengers.

The Public Has Rights Too

The argument should therefore recognise three competing interests.

Trade unions have the right to organise workers and fight for legitimate labour interests.

Individual workers have the right to decide whether, and with whom, they wish to associate, subject to the law.

Passengers, meanwhile, have the right to travel without having their legitimate journeys disrupted by a dispute in which they have no direct involvement.

This is why the language attributed to Akinjole deserves scrutiny.

When an aviation union leader calls Air Peace “the champion of bad airlines in Nigeria” while his organisation is simultaneously engaged in industrial action against the airline, Nigerians can reasonably question whether the rhetoric is aimed at resolving the dispute or damaging the company’s reputation.

Those who have raised questions about possible sponsorship of the union action therefore deserve answers rather than dismissal.

Authorities Should Investigate the Real Issues

If the unions have evidence that Air Peace has violated labour laws, frustrated legitimate unionisation or failed to meet statutory obligations, they should present that evidence before the appropriate institutions.

The relevant labour and aviation authorities can investigate the allegations, while the National Industrial Court remains available to determine disputes within its jurisdiction.

Industrial action should not become a substitute for legal processes.

The reported intervention of Aviation Minister Festus Keyamo, after which the unions suspended their picketing pending further discussions, is a welcome development. But a lasting resolution requires the underlying issues to be properly examined.

I support the right of Nigerian workers to unionise. I support collective bargaining and lawful industrial action. What I do not support is coercion, intimidation or the use of industrial action to damage a company or punish citizens who are not parties to the dispute.

Section 40 guarantees freedom of association; it does not establish a monopoly for any particular union.

The right of one worker to belong to a union cannot become the right to force another worker into that same union.

If Akinjole and his colleagues disagree with that interpretation, the appropriate place to settle the question is before the relevant legal institutions.

And regarding the description of Air Peace as “the champion of bad airlines in Nigeria”, that remains a reputational judgment rather than a legal finding.

If there is evidence supporting the claim, it should be presented to the appropriate regulators and, where necessary, made available to the Nigerian public.

Until then, such rhetoric risks appearing less like a contribution to resolving a labour dispute and more like an attempt to discredit a Nigerian airline.

Chukwuelobe, journalist and public affairs commentator, writes from Lagos.