MAXWELL ODAME & OTHERS AND AKOSOMBO TEXTILE LIMITED [2004]DLCHRAJ6097

Date	2004-07-15
Suit No.	Our Ref: CHRAJ/304/1998/1672
Citation No.	[2004]DLCHRAJ6097

D.K. OFOSU-QUARTEY

[2004]DLCHRAJ6097
																																						<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" >MAXWELL ODAME
&amp; OTHERS<o:p></o:p>{COMPLAINANT}<o:p></o:p>AND<o:p></o:p>AKOSOMBO
TEXTILE LIMITED<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center;
line-height:normal;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">Our
Ref: CHRAJ/304/1998/1672&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;15/07/2004<o:p></o:p>

</div>INTRODUCTION:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:
1.0pt;line-height:normal;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">In
a complaint dated 27th July 1998, the Complainants petition the Commission
against their wrongful termination of appointment by the Respondents.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>COMPLAINANT'S CASE:<o:p></o:p>The
Complainants former employees of Akosombo Textiles Limited (ATL) said their
appointments were terminated by the Respondents for what was termed Negligence
and Dereliction of duty. The Complainants claimed the alleged theft had not been
proved.<o:p></o:p>According
to the Complainants they petitioned the ATL Local Union but the case dragged on
for 3 years hence their decision to petition the Commission for redress.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>RESPONDENT'S CASE:<o:p></o:p>The
Respondents through their Counsel Quist Brown, Wontumi and Mills Solicitors
stated that the Complainants were security men on duty when the Company's
property worth ¢3,747,597.00 was stolen from their warehouse. The appointments
of the Complainants were therefore terminated in accordance with the Joint
Service Agreement, the Complainants were paid a month's salary in lieu of
notice. According to the Respondents they did not need to assign reasons for
terminating the Complainants appointment, since the joint service agreement
merely required them give one month's notice or equivalent in salary. The fact
that the Respondent assigned reasons for their action did not detract in anyway
from the validity of their actions, they referred to Aryee v State Construction
Corporation 1984/86 GLRD50 and Banner-Menson v Ghana Employers Association
1996/1997 SCGLR 417 to support their argument.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:
1.4pt;line-height:normal;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">In
reaction to the Respondent comments the Complainants stated that the
Respondents acted in total disregard of Article 24 of the Union/Management
Collective Agreement which provided that "were an employee is suspected of
commi</main>