SEBASTIAN DZAISU & 92 ORS vs. GHANA BRWERIES LTD. [2008]DLSC2463

Date	2008-05-28
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/29/2007
Citation No.	[2008]DLSC2463

AKUFFO (MRS) J.S.C. (PRESIDING)

BROBBEY J.S.C.

ANSAH J.S.C.

ADINYIRA (MRS) J.S.C.

ASIAMAH J.S.C.

KWEKU Y. PAINTSIL FOR APPELLANTS.

GEORGE AGYEMANG-SARPONG FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[2008]DLSC2463
																																						<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" >SEBASTIAN DZAISU &amp; 92 ORS<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA BRWERIES LTD.<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT]<o:p></o:p>CIVIL
APPEAL NO. J4/29/2007<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">

DATE: 28TH MAY 2008.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KWEKU
Y. PAINTSIL FOR APPELLANTS.<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">

GEORGE
AGYEMANG-SARPONG FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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">

AKUFFO
(MRS) J.S.C. (PRESIDING), BROBBEY J.S.C., ANSAH J.S.C., ADINYIRA (MRS) J.S.C.,
ASIAMAH J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>SOPHIA
ADINYIRA (MRS.), J.S.C.: The Plaintiffs/Appellants (hereinafter called the
appellants) were employed as casual workers by Ghana Breweries Ltd, the
Defendant/Respondent (hereinafter called the Respondent), in various periods
ranging between the years 1993 to April 2003. The appellants claimed they did
the same work as the permanent workers and yet were denied all other benefits
and allowances, which the Respondent made available to the regular or permanent
workers under a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Some of these benefits
were particularised in Paragraph 5 of the statement of claim to include:
overtime, night allowance, annual leave, back pay and participation in credit
and trade unions. According to the appellants they made several petitions to
the respondent to upgrade and make them permanent employees without success.
They also wrote to the Labour Office for help but to no avail, so they
instituted this action before the High Court (Fast Track Division) Accra,
claiming:<o:p></o:p>i.&nbsp;
A Declaration that:<o:p></o:p>[a] The employment by the Defendant of
the Plaintiffs as casual workers and&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; others as
regular workers for the same work on different terms or&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
conditions of employment;<o:p></o:p>[b] The Defendant’s failure to ensure
that the Plaintiffs received or had&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; adequate
rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; period of
holidays with pay;<o:p></o:p>[c] The purported mass termination of
the plaintiffs’ appointments or&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
dismissal howsoever called were wrongful, discriminatory, unjust,
unfair,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
unconscionable and offend articles 16[1], 21[1] [e] and 24 of the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Constitution of 1992 as well as the Labour Decree 1967 [NLCD.157]; and<o:p></o:p>[d] The Plaintiff’s were entitled to
be placed on the same terms and service&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; conditions as that
of the other regular workers of the Defendant,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
including, but not limited to the full package under the CBA and all
other&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
benefits paid by the Defendant to the regular workers from time to time.<o:p></o:p>[ii]&nbsp;
An order directed to the Defendant to compute subject to verification by
a Court Appointed Expert and pay to the Plaintiffs allowances, benefits,
entitlements which were ordinarily or otherwise available to the regular
workers and to which they were entitled but were denied, with interest thereon
from respective dates on which the amounts first became due.<o:p></o:p>[iii] An order for the appointment of
a Court Expert to receive from the Defendant all relevant record books and
information relating to Plaintiffs’ entitlements, allowances etc.&nbsp; for the express purpose of computing
Plaintiffs’ entitlements, allowances, benefits or any financial package payable
or due to the Plaintiffs in connection with their employment;<o:p></o:p>[iv] Damages of ¢200,000,000.00 for
wrongful termination of appointment; and<o:p></o:p>[v] Further or any other orders or
Reliefs as the Honorable Court will deem meet.<o:p></o:p>The
respondent denied the claim on the main grounds that the appellants as casual
workers were not entitled to be upgraded as permanent workers despite their
long stay in the company; and that in any event they offered them permanent
service contract in place of the day-to-day contract subject to routine medical
examination but they refused.<o:p></o:p>For
brevity, the main issues set down for determination at the trial will be set
out in the course of this judgment.<o:p></o:p>