DEEPSEA DIVISION OF NATIONAL UNION OF SEAMEN AND OTHERS vs. TRADES UNION CONGRESS OF GHANA AND OTHERS [1980]DLHC2117

DEEPSEA DIVISION OF NATIONAL UNION OF SEAMEN AND OTHERS vs. TRADES UNION CONGR... [1980]DLHC2117

Date	1980-07-04
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1980]DLHC2117

CECILIA KORANTENG-ADDOW J.

TSATSU TSIKATA FOR THE APPLICANTS.

J. K. AGYEMANG FOR THE FIRST THREE RESPONDENTS.

R. KAKRABA-QUARSHIE FOR THE FOURTH RESPONDENT.

JOHN BOATENG STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE GHANA SEAMEN EMPLOYMENT AND WELFARE BOARD.

[1980]DLHC2117
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >DEEPSEA DIVISION OF NATIONAL UNION OF SEAMEN AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>TRADES UNION CONGRESS OF GHANA AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1982-83] GLR 941<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
4 JULY 1980<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

TSATSU TSIKATA FOR THE APPLICANTS. <o:p></o:p>

J. K. AGYEMANG FOR THE FIRST THREE RESPONDENTS. <o:p></o:p>

R. KAKRABA-QUARSHIE FOR THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

JOHN BOATENG, STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE GHANA SEAMEN
EMPLOYMENT AND WELFARE BOARD.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

CECILIA KORANTENG-ADDOW J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF KORANTENG-ADDOW J.<o:p></o:p>On 19
November 1979, my noble and learned brother, Amua-Sekyi J., granted an
application by the plaintiffs herein, and made certain mandatory and
prohibitory orders against the defendants; they were interim orders made
pending the determination of the suit. The orders were as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that the Maritime and Dockworkers Union, its servants, agents or
other persons whomsoever be and are hereby restrained from acting or holding
itself out in any manner whatsoever as representing the National Union of
Seamen (NUS) or any of the Deepseas, Coastwise and Fisheries Division thereof:
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants be and are hereby ordered to
restore forthwith to the plaintiffs upon trust for their respective divisions
the collective bargaining certificate of the National Union of Seamen which the
defendants withdrew on or about 3 June 1978 pending the hearing and
determination of this suit; AND THAT the Maritime and Dockworkers Union do pay
into the court within seven days by way of interim preservation thereof all
dues so far collected by them from persons who were members of the said
divisions of the National Union of Seamen as at 30 May 1978 and further to stop
collecting dues from members of the said divisions until the final
determination of this suit.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The first
plaintiff is the Takoradi branch chairman of the Deepseas Division of the
National Union of Seamen (hereinafter called N.U.S.); the second plaintiff is
the Tema branch chairman and the third plaintiff is the chairman of the
Coastwise Division of N.U.S. They sued in their representative capacities on
behalf of the members of the Deepseas and Coastwise Divisions N.U.S. The second
defendant is the General Secretary of N.U.S. and the third defendant is the
National Chairman of the N.U.S.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
fourth defendant is a trade Union, i.e. the Maritime and Dockworkers Union
(MDU) established for the welfare of dock workers on the seafront of Ghana. So
the M.D.U. and N.U.S. are both member unions of the Trades Union Congress
(T.U.C.). Some time in 1978, an agreement was reached between the executives of
N.U.S., M.D.U. and the T.U.C. whereby the Coastwise and Deepseas Divisions of
N.U.S. were merged with M.D.U. A faction of the N.U.S. obviously dissatisfied
with this arrangement took out summons asking for a declaration that the agreement
is null and void; an order for restoration of the collective bargaining
certificate of N.U.S. which the T.U.C. withdrew; a refund of all dues collected
by the fourth defendant and an order perpetually restraining the M.D.U and
T.U.C. from enforcing the agreement.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Pending
the hearing of the case, the plaintiffs applied and obtained interim orders
against the defendants in respect of these reliefs. In this application they
complain that the Acting General Secretary of the T.U.C. is in breach of these orders
because he did not personally see to it that the court’s orders were carried
out; in particular it was deposed to in the affidavit in support that when the
second plaintiff approached him about the court’s orders the acting general
secretary retorted he did not care about the orders of the court. Mr. Tsikata
contended that the plaintiffs were put to expense in getting the Chief Labour
Officer to restore their collective bargaining certificate, and that it was
after this motion had been filed that the T.U.C. wrote to the Chief Labour
Officer to restore the certificate. No act of disobedience was alleged against
the second and the third defendants.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>