VOLTA ALUMINIUM CO LTD vs. AKUFFO AND OTHERS [2004]DLSC1052

Date	2004-04-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2004]DLSC1052

KPEGAH JSC

ATUGUBA JSC

AKUFFO JSC

BADDOO JSC

DATE-BAH JSC

ANNAN ANKOMAH FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

DANSO AKYEAMPONG FOR THE PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.

[2004]DLSC1052
																																						<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:#00B0F0">VOLTA ALUMINIUM CO LTD<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:#00B0F0">vs.<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:#00B0F0">AKUFFO AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[2003-2005]
1 GLR 502<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="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">Date: 29 April 2004<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>ANNAN
ANKOMAH FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.<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">

DANSO
AKYEAMPONG FOR THE PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.
<o:p></o:p>

KPEGAH,
ATUGUBA, AKUFFO, BADDOO AND DATE-BAH JJSC<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Kpegah JSC. I
have had the advantage of reading beforehand, the judgment to be delivered by
my learned brother Date-Bah JSC. I agree with his reasoning and conclusion. I
have nothing useful to add.<o:p></o:p>Akuffo JSC. I
have also had the advantage of reading beforehand, the judgment of my learned
brother Date-Bah JSC. I also agree with his reasoning and conclusion.<o:p></o:p>Date-Bah JSC.
This appeal turns on the interpretation to be given to certain provisions in a
collective bargaining agreement between the employer of the
plaintiffs-respondents and their trade union. The facts of the case are not in
dispute.<o:p></o:p>The facts<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiffs-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) used to be
employed by the defendant-appellant company (hereinafter referred to as the
defendant). They were members of the Industrial and Commercial Workers’ Union
(ICU) of the Ghana Trades Union Congress. On 16 May 1994 the defendant
terminated the employment of the plaintiffs (along with other employees) on the
ground of redundancy. In doing this, the defendant purported to be acting
pursuant to article 15(e) of the labour agreement between the ICU and the
defendant company. This labour agreement was the collective bargaining
agreement between the two parties. By virtue of section 10(2) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1965 (Act 299), its provisions were incorporated into the
individual employment contracts of the plaintiffs. Article 15(e) is in the
following terms: “(e) Employees to be declared redundant will be given two (2)
months’ notice or paid in lieu.”<o:p></o:p>The
defendant company paid the plaintiffs two months’ salary in lieu; exercising
what it interpreted as an option available to it under the above provision.
However, the plaintiffs were aggrieved by this act and instituted action
against the defendant claiming the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“(i)
a declaration that the calculation of their terminal benefits should be based
on the amount of remuneration which would have accrued to, them on 15 July
1994; <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">