EMMANUEL KOFI KUMI AND OTHERS (PLAINTIFFS) vs. GHANA AGRO FOOD COMPANY LIMITED (DEFENDANT) [2006]DLHC7526

EMMANUEL KOFI KUMI AND OTHERS (PLAINTIFFS) vs. GHANA AGRO FOOD COMPANY LIMITED (... [2006]DLHC7526

Date	2006-01-18
Suit No.	SUIT NO. AHR 4/2005
Citation No.	[2006]DLHC7526

VICTOR OFOE J.

[2006]DLHC7526
																																						<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" ><a name="_Hlk24368112">EMMANUEL KOFI KUMI AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p></a>(PLAINTIFFS)<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA AGRO FOOD COMPANY LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT NO. AHR 4/2005&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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: 18TH
JANUARY, 2006<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

VICTOR OFOE, J. SITTING AS
JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div>The
plaintiffs are all workers of Ghana Agro Food Company Limited. Depending upon
whether one is a junior staff or senior staff they are governed by either the
Junior Staff Collective Bargaining Agreement (JSCBA) or Senior Staff Collective
Bargaining Agreement (SSCBA). Those of the plaintiffs governed by the Junior
Staff Collective Bargaining Agreement are the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs, 7th to
145 plaintiffs and these are members of the Local Union of the Industrial and
Commercial Workers Union (ICU) of TUC. The 3rd and 4th plaintiff and 1st to 6th
plaintiffs are those of the plaintiffs governed by (SSCBA). <o:p></o:p>The
Junior Staff Collective Bargaining Agreement was signed by two members of the
National Union and 2 members of the Local Union of the Industrial and
Commercial Workers Union (ICU). They are in court because they claim the
defendants have unlawfully dismissed them and wrongfully withheld their
salaries, and their emoluments. Their writ of summons claim:— <o:p></o:p>"a. A declaration that the dismissal of the
plaintiff from the employment of the defendant company or the purported
termination of the contract of employment between the plaintiff and the
defendant on or around the 1st December 2003 was unlawful, wrongful and ultra
vires the collective Bargaining Agreement; <o:p></o:p>b. An Order for the restoration to the plaintiff of their
salaries benefits, entitlements and other emoluments wrongfully withheld or
forfeited during the period of wrongful dismissal, including an order for
negotiation for payments of all redundancy benefits due; <o:p></o:p>c. General Damages for wrongful termination of employment
and lost of service". <o:p></o:p>Lets
look at their case on the pleadings. It is that on the 10th of November 2003
there was a tripartite committee made up of representatives of the management,
local union and ICU and it was agreed that the Human Resource Manager, Mr.
Frank Ocran should stay out of the premises of the defendant company pending
investigations into his conduct. But on the 1st of December 2003 the said Frank
Ocran suddenly returned to work and it was alleged that a few unidentified
workers who were on break around 10am sought to prevent him from resuming work.
According to plaintiff this incident did not disrupt work. Work continued until
5pm. But around 5pm on this 1st December 2003 management embarked on an illegal
lockout by locking out all workers except few staff to manage essential
installations. Then on the 2nd December 2003 a notice purporting to come from management
dismissing all unionized workers from 1st December was issued. It is
plaintiff’s case that this act which in effect victimized all workers of the
company for alleged act of unidentifiable few was wrong since most of the
workers were even not on duty at the time of the alleged assaults on Frank
Ocran. Some were not on duty because they were on different shift and others
were on leave, whilst others were at outstations and even some were on sick
leave. It is the case of the plaintiff that the notice of dismissal was ultra
vires the Junior Staff Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Senior Staff
Collective Bargaining Agreement. Plaintiffs see this dismissal a pretext by the
defendant to achieve an existing ulterior motive. Management has had plans to
lay off 200 workers but had been restrained by financial consideration and had
decided to do it in batches. In fact 45 workers had already been laid off early
2003. According to plaintiffs it is the intention of management to use this
incident to lay off workers without paying them any compensation package in
violation of the Junior Staff Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Senior
Staff Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Labour Decree. Plaintiffs case
continued that subsequent to this dismissal, meetings were held between
management of GAFCO and ICU which resulted in memorandum of understanding. The
memorandum was witnessed by Mrs. Rose Karikari Annang the Executive Director of
the Ghana Employers Association and the then Minister for Manpower and Development
Mr. Yaw Barimah. Plaintiffs contention is that the Memorandum of Understanding
is illegal since it was made without the participation of the Chairman and
Secretary of the Local Union and Chairman and Vice Chairman of the PMSU (Union
of Senior Staff) who were signatories to the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
The Memorandum in effect sought to illegally vary both the Junior Staff
Collective Bargaining Agreement and Senior Staff Collective Bargaining
Agreement and legalize the unlawful dismissal of the 1st December 2003 and
provided for the temporary layoff of workers, something unknown to both the
Junior Staff Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Senior Staff Collective
Bargaining Agreement. In any case the Memorandum of Understanding is even being
violated by management in that they are employing new staff without giving
plaintiffs the option to be reengaged. Such is the case of the plaintiff. <o:p></o:p>What
is defendants response. There was an emergency meeting with the local union to
find out the reason for industrial unrest on the Defendants factory premises by
its workers, Mr. Frank Ocran whom the workers including the Plaintiff's claim
was the cause of the unrest was asked to proceed on casual leave. Pursuant to
the Labour Department Directives after the matter had been referred to it Mr.
Ocran returned to work on the 1st of December 2003. On arrival of Mr. Ocran on
the factory premises, the workers of the Defendant including the Plaintiffs
caused mayhem flying red flags all over the premises of the Defendant property
sounded siren and caused damage to the defendant's properties. The plaintiffs
entered the office of Frank Ocran and assaulted him and sent him out of the
yard. They also refused to work until Mr. Ocran had been dismissed. Defendants
in reaction to these acts of the plaintiffs closed down the factory and
subsequen</main>