Some Abuja-based lawyers have said that no legal entity had the right to compel its employees to operate accounts with a particular bank.
The lawyers were reacting to the directive by Governor Yahaya Bello of Kogi State to workers in the North-Central state to bank in two designated banks.
They said such a directive only amounted to infringement of fundamental rights of employees, saying, the choice of a bank is an unalienable right of the employee.
They, however, said nothing stopped establishments or government from appealing to their workforce to patronise a particular bank.
Mr Cletus Ochoga said: “this is the first time I am hearing of such a thing, not even during the military era did we hear of such a directive.
“It is draconian and condemnable because no provision of the 1999 Constitution or any known status supports this.
“Any aggrieved worker, who seeks justice in this regard, should approach the court because it is indeed actionable,’’ Ochoga said.
Another lawyer, Mr Jeff Ogbe, said such a deal could be struck with mutual understanding and not with directive, adding that only minors were guided in account opening matters.
“I think it was a step taken too far even though the state government wanted to use it as a measure to checkmate infiltration of its service by ghost workers,’’ Ogbe said.
Also, Adedeji Adeola, said no civil rule in the country empowered either the Federal or state government to select banks with which its employees must operate salary accounts.
“The step is simply wrong and should be resisted by affected persons.
“The bane of the people is their lack of knowledge of the provisions that govern their employment status. No president or governor has such rights to force the employees to select banks.
“I am aware that some government institutions and even states do that in order to build up financial portfolios with banks to access special facilities at lower percentage rates,’’ he said.
Mrs Daramola Fela, while agreeing with Adeola’s position, said no employer should take advantage of the vulnerability of their employees to embark on distasteful work ethics.
In his contribution, Mr Austin Nwosu, said that the choice of a bank was a constitutional right.
“ Your employer cannot force an association on you; your employer can only persuade you but not force you; it is an inalienable right to choose whom to associate with.
“The employer can use moral suasion or persuasion guided by administrative convenience but must not, in any way, use force, otherwise it will amount to violation of the employee’s fundamental right.
“The only exception is if the choice of the bank, from the outset, is made the condition of employment by the employer and the employee accepted.
“In that case it becomes an agreement that is enforceable being a product of negotiation; in other words, it becomes one of the basis of the employer-employee relationship,’’ he said.
Nwosu said that would now be enforceable because “it is not against public policy’’.
Mr Barnabas Aruwa, another lawyer, said that it was wrong, because the freedom of association extended to financial institutions.
Aruwa said that when anyone was forced to go to another bank it would be against the freedom to choose and associate freely.
He said that an employer coercing an employee to choose a particular bank was wrong and against the fundamental principles of freedom of choice.
“It leaves the employee with no choice of selecting flexible packages that the other banks give save the ones they are compelled to choose.
“I hold the firm view that employers should give employees the leverage of choice when it comes to their financial institutions.
“The choice of it should be theirs in order to build trust and cordial relation in work place,’’ he said.
