GAKPLADZI FRANCIS & ORS. vs. SPINTEX LIMITED [2004]DLCA7031

Date	2004-03-12
Suit No.	COURT OF APPEAL NO.: HI/35/2004
Citation No.	[2004]DLCA7031

OMARI SASU J.A. (PRESIDING)

ANIM J.A.

KUSI-APPOUH (MRS) J

[2004]DLCA7031
																																						<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" >GAKPLADZI FRANCIS &amp; ORS.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SPINTEX LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<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">

COURT OF APPEAL NO.:&nbsp;
HI/35/2004&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: 12TH MARCH 2004<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&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;&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;
<o:p></o:p>OMARI
SASU J.A. (PRESIDING), ANIM J.A., KUSI-APPOUH (MRS) J.<o:p></o: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="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>ANIM J.A. <o:p></o:p>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>&nbsp;(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>&nbsp;(b) An order compelling Defendants to pay to
SSNIT the Social Security contributions deducted from Plaintiffs.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(c) Any other relief or reliefs this
Honourable Court may deem fit.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;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>&nbsp;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>Ground (a) was formulated as follows:—<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;"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>&nbsp;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 NARTEY
TOKOLI VRS. VALCO (1987-88) GLRD 100 to buttress his point.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;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>&nbsp;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 NARTEY
TOKOLI v VALCO (1987-88) GLRD 100, the very case cited by counsel for
the Defendants. <o:p></o:p>Counsel argued further
that the </main>