Media
- Home
- Details
Hon. Justice Gerald Nweneka of the Lagos Judicial Division of the National Industrial Court has dismissed an alleged N29.6m retirement benefit claim filed by one Mr Obi against Fidelity Bank for lacking merit.
The Court held that Mr. Obi cannot claim any entitlement under a non-existent policy, and the question of retroactively applying the new retirement policy does not arise.
From the facts, the claimant, Mr. Obi, had averred that she qualifies for retirement benefits, as she has completed 15 years of uninterrupted service with Fidelity Bank Plc. Mr. Obi stated that Fidelity Bank Plc recognised her exemplary service on two occasions: first, when she received a certificate of long service and a cash award for ten years of dedicated service, and second, when she was celebrated again with a certificate and a cash award for 15 years of continuous service.
However, on December 23, 2016, Fidelity Bank announced the termination of its retirement and gratuity policy. Despite the policy change, Mr. Obi maintains that she fulfilled the 15-year service requirement by December 2015, thus qualifying for the sum of N29,659,572.00 retirement benefits.
In defence, the defendant- Fidelity Bank submitted that Mr. Obi was seconded to the Defendant, and was not considered a staff member of the Defendant during the period from 6th December 2000, when FUSL employed her, until 1st July 2004, when she was converted into a staff member of the Bank.
The Fidelity Bank states that Mr. Obi is not entitled to any retirement benefits because she became the Bank’s core staff on 1st July 2004, and the policy was no longer in effect when she left the Defendant in August 2017.
Counsel to the Bank, Chukwudi Eze Esq argued that Mr. Obi claims for retirement benefits are based on a non-existent policy, specifically, the Defendant's Personnel Policies and Procedures Guide [version 2.8 of June 2010], which was discontinued on 15th December 2016. Therefore, only employees who have completed 15 years of unbroken service, as outlined in clause 7.20 of Exhibit 4, are entitled to retirement benefits, and urged the Court to dismiss the case in its entirety.
In opposition, the claimant's counsel argued that Fidelity Bank is estopped from denying his client as its staff since it had already granted her 10 and 15-year long service awards, and urged the Court to hold that Mr. Obi is entitled to retirement benefits based on the cash awards, certificates, and congratulatory messages she received.
In response to the Fidelity Bank argument that Mr. Obi only became a core staff in 2004 and thus was unqualified for terminal benefits, counsel reviewed Exhibit 2, the letter of conversion; and argued that this letter does not indicate a new employment and does not apply to the Claimant, as she was never a temporary staff.
After careful evaluation of the submissions of both parties, the Presiding Judge, Justice Gerald Nweneka reiterated that an employee on secondment to another institution remains the employee of the organisation that seconded him, and affirmed that Mr. Obi was indeed an employee of Fidelity Union Securities Limited on 11th December 2000, and was on secondment to the Fidelity Bank.
The Court held that the provision of Clause 3.12.1 provides that if a temporary staff member is converted to permanent status, his/her accredited service will commence from the conversion date, and other terms and conditions applicable to permanent staff will also apply from that date.
The Court found that Mr. Obi commenced her employment with the Fidelity Bank on 1st July 2004, and Mr. Obi had not reached the benchmark of 15 years of continuous service when the Defendant’s retirement benefits scheme was discontinued on 15th December 2016, and when she exited the Bank employment on 1st August 2017, the policy on voluntary retirement no longer existed.
“Even if I were to find otherwise, which I do not believe is the case, and determine that the Claimant had indeed attained the milestone of 15 years of unbroken service as of 15th December 2016, she would still not be eligible for retirement benefits because she did not meet the prerequisite of providing three months’ notice of retirement.” Justice Nweneka ruled
Visit the judgment portal for details
