TSC Row: Regulators Should Enforce Revenue Remittance, Not Trade Unions – Expert

Aviation expert James Odaudu has said the controversy over airlines’ remittance of statutory charges should not be conflated with the legitimate mandate of trade unions.

Odaudu who disclosed this in an exclusive chat with LEADERSHIP, while reacting to the ongoing debate over the collection and remittance of the Ticket Sales Charge (TSC), said while there was nothing wrong with demanding accountability from airlines or government agencies, the enforcement of statutory revenue remittance was primarily the responsibility of regulators and other relevant government institutions, rather than trade unions.

He stressed that any airline found to have failed to remit funds legally due to government should be investigated and sanctioned where appropriate.

According to him, “There is absolutely nothing wrong with demanding accountability from airlines or government agencies. If an airline collects statutory charges from passengers and fails to remit money that it is legally required to remit, that matter should be investigated and, where established, sanctioned.”

However, he questioned whether non-remittance of government revenue automatically constituted a legitimate basis for trade-union picketing or industrial action.

“The critical question is this, does that automatically make the non-remittance of government revenue a legitimate subject of trade-union picketing or industrial action? The answer, in my view, is not necessarily,” he said.

Odaudu explained that trade unions had a legitimate mandate to protect their members’ interests in areas including employment, wages, working conditions, welfare, job security and collective bargaining.

He, however, noted that the collection and remittance of statutory government charges were primarily matters of regulatory compliance, public finance and enforcement.

“The responsibility for investigating non-remittance ordinarily belongs to the relevant government agency, regulator, tax authority, law-enforcement institution, or court, not to a trade union,” he said.

He drew a distinction between a union taking action because an airline’s conduct directly affects its members and seeking to disrupt an airline’s operations because the airline owes government money.

“There is therefore a fundamental distinction between saying, ‘This airline’s conduct is affecting our members, and we are demanding that it be corrected,’ and saying, ‘This airline owes government money, therefore our union is entitled to shut down or disrupt its operations until the money is paid.’

“The first falls naturally within industrial relations while the second potentially crosses into the territory of regulatory enforcement.”

Odaudu stressed that while strikes were legitimate in democratic societies, the right was not unlimited, particularly in critical sectors such as aviation.

He acknowledged that workers in countries including the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the United States and Australia had embarked on strikes, but argued that the existence of industrial action in those jurisdictions did not mean every form of strike was automatically lawful or justified.

“Most mature jurisdictions recognise that the right to strike exists alongside other rights and public interests. There are procedures for collective bargaining, conciliation, mediation, notice, emergency intervention, and, in certain circumstances, restrictions on industrial action in essential or safety-critical services,” he said.

According to him, this distinction was particularly important in aviation because airports were not merely commercial workplaces but components of national transportation and security infrastructure.

He noted that pilots, air traffic personnel, aircraft maintenance professionals, security personnel and other critical aviation workers perform functions where disruption could have consequences beyond the immediate employer-worker relationship.

“The debate should, therefore, not be framed simplistically as ‘workers’ rights versus passengers.’ The real question is how to protect workers’ rights, passenger rights, public safety, and the continuity of critical aviation services simultaneously,” Odaudu said.

He, however, agreed with the labour perspective that employers must also be subjected to enforceable obligations when disputes arise.

Odaudu said any government proposal restricting industrial action should not create a one-sided regime where workers face deadlines and penalties while employers are allowed to ignore legitimate grievances indefinitely.

“If the government proposes restrictions on industrial action, it should not create a one-sided regime in which workers are subjected to deadlines and penalties, while employers can ignore legitimate grievances indefinitely,” he said.