Labour’s rejection puts the spotlight on alleged unpaid wage awards, the unresolved JOHESU salary dispute and whether another temporary intervention can restore workers’ confidence.
The Trade Union Congress of Nigeria (TUC) has rejected the Federal Government’s proposed ₦70,000 monthly transport allowance, demanding an immediate increase in workers’ salaries and the implementation of outstanding agreements with health workers.
The congress argues that temporary financial assistance cannot provide lasting relief to workers whose incomes are being squeezed by rising food prices, transportation costs, healthcare expenses and other essential bills.
Its rejection also exposes a growing challenge for the government: securing workers’ confidence in a fresh relief package when organised labour alleges that previous commitments remain unpaid or have been implemented inconsistently.
The Federal Government announced the transport allowance after a conciliation meeting with the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) in Abuja on Tuesday, October 27, 2026. The intervention is scheduled to begin in November and run for six months.
The TUC, however, says another temporary payment is not the answer to Nigeria’s cost-of-living crisis. It wants the government to increase salaries permanently and honour its outstanding commitments to workers. TheCable+2
TUC Proposes ₦300,000 Salary for Lowest-Paid Worker
In a statement issued on Wednesday, October 28, and signed by its President, Festus Osifo, and Secretary-General, Nuhu Toro, the TUC said it had formally asked the Federal Government to review salaries in response to worsening economic conditions.
The congress said its National Administrative Council had considered the issue at a meeting in Abuja on October 8 before the union pursued consultations with government officials through the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation.
According to the TUC, government representatives raised the possibility of another wage award during consultations, but the union rejected the proposal.
Its argument is that negotiations over the national minimum wage should not prevent the government from granting an immediate salary increase.
“The Federal Government should review increasing workers’ salaries,” the congress said, arguing that the government did not need to conclude minimum wage negotiations before increasing pay because “there is no maximum wage law in the country”.
The TUC proposed that the lowest-paid federal worker’s monthly salary could be raised from ₦70,000 to ₦300,000, with corresponding adjustments across other salary grades.
That figure is a proposal by the union, not an approved government salary scale.
The distinction matters because Nigeria’s statutory minimum wage was increased from ₦30,000 to ₦70,000 when President Bola Tinubu signed the National Minimum Wage Act into law on July 29, 2024. The statutory minimum establishes a wage floor; it does not prevent employers from paying more.
For the TUC, the proposed increase would provide a more dependable response to rising living costs than a temporary allowance that expires after six months.
“Negotiations of a new national minimum wage must not become an excuse for postponing urgent pay increment,” the congress said.
The Unpaid Wage Award Behind the Rejection
The TUC’s strongest objection concerns the implementation of an earlier wage award agreed by the Federal Government and organised labour on October 2, 2023.
The arrangement was intended to provide interim financial relief while negotiations over a new national minimum wage continued. The TUC alleges that the government did not implement the agreement fully before the new minimum wage was settled in 2024.
“The wage award agreed between FGN and organised labour on the 2nd of October 2023 was to be implemented until a minimum wage was agreed in 2024 but was never implemented holistically,” the statement said.
The congress claimed that some workers were still owed one or two months’ payments, while others received nothing.
It further alleged that workers who benefited experienced irregular payments, sometimes waiting one or two months between instalments and making repeated demands to secure their entitlements.
The TUC also claimed that more than 80 per cent of states and workers in the informal sector had not benefited from any form of wage award.
Those figures remain claims made by the congress and have not been independently established in the material reviewed for this report.
Nevertheless, the allegations raise a critical implementation question for the new intervention: how will the government ensure that the promised payments reach eligible workers consistently and on time?
The congress challenged the rationale for repeating an arrangement it says failed to provide uniform relief.
“How do we go back to the same wage award that never benefited all workers? How can workers be expected to trust fresh promises when previous obligations remain outstanding?” it asked.
The government’s latest agreement with the NLC provides for the transport allowance to begin in November 2026. But the published terms, as reported, did not spell out every administrative detail of the disbursement mechanism.
Why the ₦70,000 Allowance Is Not a Salary Increase
The dispute also highlights an important difference between a temporary transport allowance and a permanent adjustment to basic salaries.
The government’s approved intervention is ₦70,000 per month for six months. It is intended to cushion transportation costs and wider economic pressures on public servants, rather than replace the statutory minimum wage.
If paid in full for the entire period, the allowance would amount to ₦420,000 per eligible worker over six months. That is a time-limited intervention, not an increase in the worker’s permanent monthly salary.
By contrast, a permanent salary increase would alter the wage structure and could affect consequential adjustments across different grades. The precise cost and funding implications of the TUC’s proposed ₦300,000 salary would therefore require a detailed fiscal assessment.
The TUC maintains that the government can act without waiting for another minimum wage negotiation. Its position is that the statutory minimum is a floor rather than a ceiling on workers’ earnings.
The two labour organisations have taken different positions on the immediate intervention: the NLC negotiated the agreement with the Federal Government, while the TUC has rejected the temporary allowance in favour of permanent salary increases.
State and local governments have been urged to participate in the intervention, but its adoption by those authorities cannot be assumed.
JOHESU Agreement Adds to Labour Tensions
Beyond the wage dispute, the TUC is demanding action on the unresolved adjustment of the Consolidated Health Salary Structure (CONHESS), which affects health workers represented by the Joint Health Sector Unions (JOHESU).
The congress said its president, Osifo, led a delegation of organised labour, including JOHESU representatives, in negotiations intended to resolve the dispute after months of industrial action.
The talks culminated in a conciliation meeting at the Federal Ministry of Labour and Employment. The government delegation included the Minister of Labour and Employment, Dr Muhammad Maigari Dingyadi; the Coordinating Minister of Health and Social Welfare, Professor Muhammad Ali Pate; and the then Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Wale Edun.
According to the TUC, JOHESU suspended its industrial action in good faith after both sides reached an agreement to address outstanding issues involving CONHESS.
The congress alleges that the government has yet to fulfil the commitment seven months after the agreement.
“While the workers have kept their side of the bargain, the government hasn’t kept its side of the agreement,” the statement said.
The latest developments, however, show that the broader health-sector discussions remain active.
Under a separate set of resolutions reached between the Federal Government and the NLC on October 27, the government agreed to settle 19 months of outstanding health workers’ allowances within three months, beginning in December. A revised cost assessment for the proposed CONHESS adjustment was also expected from the National Salaries, Incomes and Wages Commission within three weeks.
These steps do not establish that the disputed CONHESS adjustment has already been implemented. They do, however, make it important to distinguish between commitments to pay existing allowance arrears and the separate question of adjusting the salary structure.
The TUC has demanded immediate implementation of the agreed CONHESS adjustment, a clear timetable, adequate budgetary provisions and resolution of outstanding issues in consultation with the affected unions.
“The TUC demands tangible action, not further assurances,” it said, promising to support the affected unions and pursue lawful measures to secure compliance.
The congress warned that failure to honour agreements undermines confidence in collective bargaining and places additional pressure on workers delivering essential health services.
Beyond Salaries, TUC Demands Cost-of-Living Measures
The congress also wants the Federal Government and state and local authorities to introduce measurable interventions to reduce the cost of essential goods and services.
It called for timely payment of salaries and pensions, protection of existing jobs, action against exploitative labour practices and efforts to revitalise the productive sector to create decent employment.
The TUC argued that hardship extends beyond federal employees to state and local government workers, pensioners, private-sector employees and people working in the informal economy.
It therefore wants interventions supported by clear funding arrangements, implementation deadlines and accountability measures.
The underlying concern is that announcing financial support is not the same as delivering it. Workers need to know who qualifies, when payments will arrive, how outstanding arrears will be cleared and what happens when an agreed commitment is missed.
Without those assurances, fresh announcements risk becoming another source of industrial tension rather than a durable response to the economic pressures facing households.
Will the Dispute Lead to a Strike?
The TUC has not announced an immediate nationwide strike in the statement announcing its rejection of the allowance.
Instead, it said it was awaiting the outcome of its scheduled meeting with the Federal Government before deciding on its next steps.
That leaves room for further negotiations, although the outstanding wage award and the JOHESU agreement remain major points of contention.
For the government, the immediate challenge is to demonstrate that the new transport intervention can be implemented reliably while addressing labour’s demands for more permanent changes.
For organised labour, the central question is whether temporary assistance can protect workers’ purchasing power when regular salaries and unresolved allowances remain under pressure.
The TUC’s message is clear: it wants an enduring improvement in workers’ incomes, not another promise that expires before the cost-of-living crisis eases.
“Workers’ welfare is not a privilege. Agreements must be honoured. Workers’ rights must be respected. Government must comply,” the congress said.
The next stage of the dispute will depend on the government’s response, the implementation of its existing commitments and whether further negotiations produce verifiable improvements in workers’ pay and welfare.
Join the debate; let’s know your opinion.