MARITIME AND DOCKWORKERS’ UNION OF THE TRADES UNION CONGRESS OF GHANA vs. STATE SHIPPING CORPORATION (BLACK STAR LINE) [1983]DLHC2156

MARITIME AND DOCKWORKERS’ UNION OF THE TRADES UNION CONGRESS OF GHANA vs. STAT... [1983]DLHC2156

Date	1983-03-23
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1983]DLHC2156

OSEI-HWERE J.

O. K. OSAFO-BUABENG FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

KOCKUVIE-TAY FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1983]DLHC2156
																																						<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" >MARITIME AND DOCKWORKERS’ UNION OF THE TRADES UNION CONGRESS OF GHANA <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>STATE SHIPPING CORPORATION (BLACK STAR LINE) <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1982-83] GLR 671<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:
23 MARCH 1983<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">

O. K. OSAFO-BUABENG FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<o:p></o:p>

KOCKUVIE-TAY FOR THE DEFENDANTS.<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 1.0pt 0in">

OSEI-HWERE J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OSEI-HWERE J.<o:p></o:p>Consequent
upon an industrial dispute which erupted between the Maritime and Dockworkers’
Union of the T.U.C. (Black Star Line branch) and the management of the State
Shipping Corporation (Black Star Line,) the Commissioner for Labour and Social
Welfare appointed Dr. Joe K. Ansere as the sole arbitrator. His terms of
reference were, “to inquire into whether or not the workers who occupy houses
owned by the Black Star Line should be paid 20 per cent rent allowance.” After
he had concluded the arbitral proceedings the arbitrator made his awards in the
following terms:<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">“I
therefore award that the payment of the 20 per cent rent allowance to workers
while occupying corporation houses should cease with effect from 30 April
1979...Although I feel the workers occupying Black Star Line houses should not
receive the 20 per cent rent allowance, I am inclined to agree that the union
has a case in demanding that the workers who had been residing in the corporation’s
houses be allowed to own them. I therefore award further that management take
immediate steps to hand over all the houses to the workers, and this to take
effect from 1 May 1979. The implication of this award is that the workers who
have now become owners of the houses will be entitled to receive the 20 per
cent allowance.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>These
awards were duly confirmed by the Commissioner for Labour and Social Welfare on
27 July 1979 and published in the Commercial and Industrial Bulletin No. 26 on
Friday, 3 August 1979. Pursuant to this award the board of directors of the
defendant-corporation decided that the arbitration award should be implemented
and they notified the plaintiffs accordingly by their circular letter. The
plaintiffs complain that, in spite of the said arbitration award and the
decision of the board of directors, the management of the defendant-corporation
have failed and refused and continue to refuse to implement the said award and
decision. The plaintiffs contended that the refusal of the defendant-corporation
to implement the said award and decision was unlawful and wrongful and that
unless they were otherwise ordered and compelled to do so by a court’s order
the defendant-corporation would never implement the said award and decision.
They have, therefore, sued for:<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">&nbsp;“An order that the defendant-corporation in
compliance with the said arbitration award and the said decision should
transfer the houses whose numbers are given in exhibit A (attached to the
statement of claim) to the persons whose names appear in respect of the
houses”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In their
defence the defendants have traversed, inter alia, that the matter in dispute
which was referred to Dr. Joe K. Ansere to inquire into and resolve did not go
beyond the terms of reference already set out. In respect, thereof, he awarded
“that the payment of the 20 per cent allowance to workers while occupying
corporation houses should cease with effect from 30 April 1979.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>They say
that in making the further award and directions or both the arbitrator exceeded
his authority and he acted without jurisdiction or alternatively exceeded his
jurisdiction, by reason whereof the said further award and directives are pro
tanto bad, void ab initio and are not binding or enforceable against the
defendants. Consequently, the further award and directives or both were
incapable of confirmation implementation or both by the Commissioner for Labour
and Social Welfare and the defendant-corporation’s board of directors or any
other person or body of persons or authority. They say that the void and
non-binding award and directions can be disentangled from the good, valid,
binding and enforceable award referred to in their paragraph 5 and they
consequently counterclaimed for:<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">“(1) A
declaration that the award made by the said Dr. Joe K. Ansere in respect of
stoppage of the payment of the 20 per cent allowance to the workers, referred
to in paragraph 5 hereof is good, valid and binding on the plaintiffs and the
defendant-corporation.<o:p></o:p>

</main>