ALEXANDER L. BREW AND VOLTA RIVER AUTHORITY [2000]DLCHRAJ5731

Date	2000-10-11
Suit No.	Our Ref: CHRAJ/TR 581/97/84
Citation No.	[2000]DLCHRAJ5731

BENJAMIN K. OPPONG

[2000]DLCHRAJ5731
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B050">ALEXANDER L. BREW<o:p></o:p>(COMPLAINANT)<o:p></o:p>AND<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B050">VOLTA RIVER AUTHORITY<span style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;color:#00B050"><o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>(CHRAJ)<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">

Our Ref: CHRAJ/TR 581/97/84&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;11/10/2000<o:p></o:p>

</div>COMMISSIONER:<o:p></o:p>BENJAMIN K. OPPONG DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
LEGAL/OPPERATIONS<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">DECISION<o:p></o:p>

</div>The
complainant, Mr. Alexander Louis Brew until his dismissal on 24th April, 1989
was a Senior Estate Assistant in the employment of the Respondents. By his
petition filed on 8th September, 1997 he sought the Commission's intervention
in the matter of his dismissal by the Respondents.<o:p></o:p>The
facts of the case are that sometime in August 1996 certain allegations were
made against the complainant to the effect that he had diverted a kelvinator
air-conditioner belonging to the Respondents for his personal use. Following
these allegations, the Respondents' management set up a Committee of enquiry to
investigate the circumstances surrounding the alleged diversion.<o:p></o:p>On completion of its work the Committee
submitted it Report to the Respondents. By a letter dated 17th July, 1997 the
Respondent, acting on the findings of the Committee summarily dismissed the
complainant allegedly in accordance with Article 9.2 of Appendix Group A (iii)
of the Senior Staff Conditions of Service.<o:p></o:p>In
his petition the complainant alleged that his dismissal was an act of
victimization by the Respondents. He argued that no case of diversion with an
intent to steal was made out against him by the Committee. He also accused the
Committee of prejudice, saying that their preoccupation at the time was to give
a dog a bad name and hang it.<o:p></o:p>He pleaded that he had been framed up,
adding that he had "very strong" evidence which he could tender in
his defence if invited to do so.<o:p></o:p>In
their response to the petition dated 12th August 1999 the Respondents stated in
their defence that the decision to dismiss the complainant was arrived at in
line with the Authority's disciplinary policy and procedure. They explained
that this procedure involved a query to the complainant to explain his conduct
followed by a full scale investigation by a Committee of Enquiry at which the
complainant was invited and given the opportunity to defend himself.<o:p></o:p>They
argued further that the policy and procedures applied in the complainant's case
were fair and therefore unimpeachable.<o:p></o:p>The
Commission has thoroughly studied the report of the Committee especially the
complainant's own testimonies and the testimonies of the several witnesses who
appeared before it as well as other evidence adduced in the case. After due
consideration the Commission has arrived at the conclusion that the petition is
without merit for reasons stated below.<o:p></o:p>There
is overwhelming evidence on file that the complainant did admit before the
Committee that the two air-conditioners in question were concealed in his
house. There is also evidence in the report which was signed by all five
members of the Committee that the air-conditioners were not conveyed in an
official vehicle but in a Toyota Saloon car belonging to a friend to a
wo</main>