Ex-managers of Visionscape sue firm over alleged wrongful termination of appointments
A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mr. Babatunde Fagbohunlu (left); Mr. Robert Emukpoeruo and construction law expert, Mr. Emmanuel Dike during the yearly general conference of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) in Abuja recently. PHOTO: JOSEPH ONYEKWERE
The foreign waste management firm is partnering Lagos State Government on waste management in the state.
In the suit marked NICN/LA/462/2018, the workers alleged ill-treatment.
They are asking for a declaration among others in a 22-ground of claims that the purported termination of their appointments by the defendant is null and void, being contrary to the provision of Section 10 of the company’s Employee Handbook.
They claimed that as management staff of the firm, they are entitled to all their allowances, benefits and entitlements in the sum of N.5million each and a declaration that they are in the employment of the defendant until it complies with the provision of Section 10 of its Employee Handbook.
In the alternative, the plaintiffs are praying for an order mandating the defendant to pay each of them the sum of N2million as terminal benefits, being the amount accruable, due and entitled to each of them upon the termination of their appointments.
The plaintiffs are also seeking a declaration that they are entitled to salaries, allowances and benefits accruable to them from April 2018 when their appointments were wrongfully terminated by the company till when judgment is entered in the suit, a payment of N5million each by the defendant as compensation for the wrongful termination of their appointments and N1million as cost of the suit
The plaintiffs through their counsel, David Fadile claimed that they were engaged as area managers from 1st April, 2017, until their appointments were suddenly terminated on 13th April’ 2018.
According to them, all through the period of their engagement by the defendant, aside the fact that they worked seven days a week, including weekends and public holidays, they did not enjoy any leave or vacation because of the demands of their jobs.
The claimants, who equally claimed that they were not paid leave bonuses or medical allowances as enjoyed by other employees of the defendant in the course of their employment, stated that they had on that basis complained of general welfare but was rather dismissed in a humiliating way.
But the defendants claimed that the defendants were paid salaries in lieu of notice, a claim the claimants disputed, saying the credit alerts they got in their various bank accounts after the termination of their appointments were for sums far less than their monthly salary.
