[2004]DLCA6454 Login to Read Full Case <span style="font-size: 18px !important;"><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; color:#00B0F0">GAKPLADZI FRANCIS & ORS.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">vs.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; color:#00B0F0">SPINTEX LIMITED<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p></span></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="text-align:center;border:none; mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">COURT OF APPEAL NO.: HI/35/2004 DATE: 12TH MARCH 2004<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">CORAM:</span> <o:p></o:p></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b> </b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">OMARI SASU J.A. (PRESIDING), ANIM J.A., KUSI-APPOUH (MRS) J.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt; border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none; padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in"> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;border:none; mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">ANIM J.A. <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court, Accra, presided over by His Lordship Justice Nana Gyamera Tawiah dated 20th July 2001. The Plaintiffs/Respondents hereinafter referred to as "the Plaintiffs) issued a Writ against the Defendants/Appellants (hereinafter referred to as "the Defendants") for the following reliefs, namely:—<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""> (a) An order compelling Defendants to pay to Plaintiffs their redundancy awards with interest thereon at the prevailing bank rate from 14th November 1995 to date of final payment and any other benefits or entitlements due to them.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""> (b) An order compelling Defendants to pay to SSNIT the Social Security contributions deducted from Plaintiffs.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""> (c) Any other relief or reliefs this Honourable Court may deem fit.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""> On 19th February 1997, Summons for Directives was taken: issues contained in the Plaintiffs Summons for Directions filed on 21st January 1997 as well as the additional issues filed by the Defendants on 13th February 1997 were set down for trial. The suit was thus adjourned to 13th March, 1997 for hearing.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""> On 13th March 1997 hearing of the suit did not take place. The court adjourned the case to 27th May 1997 for hearing and continuation on 26th May and 29th May 1997. On 29th May 1997 the Plaintiffs opened their case and led evidence. After a series of hearing from both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, judgment was delivered on 20th July 2001. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with this judgment the Defendants have appealed to this court. In the Notice of Appeal filed on 7th August 2001, three main grounds of Appeal set out. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">Ground <i>(a)</i> was formulated as follows:—<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""> "The Court erred in Law when it failed to hold that the Plaintiff's dismissal was as a result of illegal strike action they embarked upon."<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""> In arguing this ground Learned Counsel for the Defendants submitted that an illegal strike is an unauthorised strike or strike not sanctioned by those with authority to declare it. According to counsel the judgment accepts the Plaintiffs’ contention and evidence that the working relationship between the workers and the Defendant Company is governed or regulated by a Collective Agreement i.e. exhibit "A". This document was signed by the workers’ mother union i.e. TEGLEU and the Defendant company. Thus any variation of the Agreement has to be done by both parties. Counsel submitted that the authority or body to declare a strike or demonstration by the workers for redress is TEGLEU. Learned Counsel submitted further that the judgment does not say that the strike action embarked upon by the workers was authorised by TEGLEU or even the Local Union acting on behalf of TEGLEU. Therefore, contends Counsel, the strike action and the demonstration embarked upon by the Plaintiffs were unauthorised and therefore illegal and the dismissal of the Plaintiffs was warranted under Article 34 of the Collective Agreement, exhibit "A". Counsel relied on the leading case of <b><i>NARTEY TOKOLI VRS. VALCO (1987-88) GLRD 100</i></b> to buttress his point.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""> Learned Counsel for the Respondents fiercely resisted these submissions and argued that they were untenable for the following reasons, namely, that the judgment recognises the Defendant' case that as a result of frequent power failures which had resulted in loss of man hours and huge financial loss, management resolved to vary the collective agreement to ask workers to work to cover the hours lost. That the Collective Agreement was signed by the workers' mother Union i.e. TEGLEU and the Defendant company. That variation of the said agreement was to be done by both parties i.e. TEGLEU and Spintex Co. Ltd., the Defendant. Counsel went on to state that this variation, exhibit "B" requiring workers to work to cover was made unilaterally by the Defendants, which was a blatant breach of the Collective Agreement. Counsel submitted that the variation was illegal and void ab initio, and being an illegal act anything done in consequence of that was also illegal and could not stand.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""> Learned Counsel submitted further that the judgment also recognised that the practical effect of Exhibit "B" was that the workers had attempted to waive their rights under Exhibit "A" which sins against section 10(4) of the Industrial Related Act 1965 (Act 299). Learned Counsel also referred us to the case of <b><i>NARTEY TOKOLI v VALCO (1987-88) GLRD 100</i></b>, the very case cited by counsel for the Defendants. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">Counsel argued further that the judgment was emphatic in declaring that the suspension of the redundancy exercise coupled with Management’s Notice that any awoken who was desirous of leaving the company must resign was more damaging to the extent that this was unfair and oppressive as the workers were faced with two illegalities, namely;<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""> Either (a) “Work to Cover” or<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""> (b) resign from the company<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""> Learned Counsel submitted that the Plaintiffs were demonstrating against an illegal order/orders of the Defendant. That, indeed, they demonstrated in order to awaken management to do what was right and legal. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">Learned Counsel finally submitted that the judgment recognised that the Plaintiffs’ demonstration was legal as such act was authorised by Article 21(1)(d) of the 1992 Constitution. That it is one of such demonstrations: one against an oppressive act, which was envisaged by the framers of the 1992 Constitution who considered it prudent to make it a constitutional provision which all Ghanaians are required to uphold. Therefore, submits counsel, the learned trial judge was right in not supporting the dismis