ROBERT K. DWAMENA AND COCOBOD [2001]DLCHRAJ5897

Date	2001-06-06
Suit No.	Our Ref: CHRAJ/622/95/53
Citation No.	[2001]DLCHRAJ5897

ANGELINA M. DOMAKYAAREH

[2001]DLCHRAJ5897
																																						<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">ROBERT K. DWAMENA<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">COCOBOD<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<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">(CHRAJ)<o:p></o:p>

Our Ref: CHRAJ/622/95/53&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;DATE: 06/6/2001<o:p></o:p>

</div>commissioner:<o:p></o:p>ANGELINA
M. DOMAKYAAREH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (PROTECTION/ ENFORCEMENT) FOR COMMISSIONER<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 herein submitted his
petition to the Commission in September, 1995. The Respondent to the petition
is the Ghana Cocobod.<o:p></o:p>The Complainant came to the CHRAJ upon the
advice of the Office of the President to which he had earlier addressed a
petition for redress.<o:p></o:p>The prayer of the Complainant was for an
intervention to be made for him to be paid what he considered were full
retrenchment benefits from the Respondent.<o:p></o:p>The petition had attached to it not less
than 15 attachments. These could be summed up thus: The Complainant was
affected by a restructuring exercise which the Respondent embarked upon
sometime in 1994. The Complainant felt dissatisfied because he suspected that
the termination of his appointment had something to do with an audit report
which he had presented to the Deputy Chief Executive. Consequently, he
protested to the Acting Chief Executive and thence to the Presidential Staffer
(Cocoa Affairs).<o:p></o:p>In
October, 1994, the Secretary to the President wrote to the Cocobod to suspend
the retrenchment exercise as it related to the Complainant until further notice.
The exercise was therefore suspended and the Complainant was consequently asked
to resume duty.<o:p></o:p>By letter dated 28th June, 1995 the Office
of the President advised the Cocobod that an official Committee which was set
up to investigate the charge of victimization against Cocobod management as
well as other allegations, had submitted its findings and that Cocobod had been
exonerated. The letter (dated 28th June, 1995) quoted the recommendations of
the Committee thus: "The retrenchment of Mr. Dwamena was not done through
victimization and that it is part of Cocobod's retrenchment exercise. The Committee
is of the opinion that the decision of Management to retrench Mr. Dwamena
therefore should not be disturbed.<o:p></o:p>"Upon due
consideration of the Committee's report, this office fully endorses its final
conclusion and recommendation and directs that the earlier decision with regard
to Mr. Dwamena's retrenchment be upheld" (End of quote).<o:p></o:p>The
Cocobod on the strength of this communication wrote to the Complainant to give
effect to the directive from the office of the President. The effective date of
the Complainant's entitlements was to be 1st October, 1994. Within the context
of the letter from the Office of the President, this matter should have been
put to rest at that stage. The directive from the Office of the President was
to the effect that: "The earlier decision with regard to Mr. Dwamena's
retrenchment be upheld. There seem to be no ambiguity nor equivocation about
the directive. The earlier decision was to the effect that Mr. Dwamena be
retrenched together with some other employees of the Cocobod with effect from
1st October, 1994. Notwithstanding the apparently clear and unambiguous
language and tone of the letter from the Office of the President, the
Complainant protested against this directive, claiming that he remained a
permanent employee of the Cocobod during the period the retrenchment exercise
was suspended and therefore the retrenchment should not take effect from 1st
October, 1994 date but from July, 1995.<o:p></o:p>