CANDY TETTEH vs. 1ST AFRICAN REMITTANCES LTD [2009]DLNLC7595

Date	2009-11-18
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2009]DLNLC7595

[2009]DLNLC7595
																																						<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" >CANDY TETTEH<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>1ST AFRICAN
REMITTANCES LTD<o:p></o:p>[NLC]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;mso-pagination:none;
border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">Our Ref: NLC/C- 414/09/68m&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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 NOVEMBER, 2009<o:p></o:p>

</div>FOR
THE COMMISSON: <o:p></o:p>OPANIN
OBENG-FOSU (MEMBER)<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">

DECISION<o:p></o:p>

</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:6.0pt;margin-right:20.6pt;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes">Considering the petition
filed by Candy Tettey (hereinafter called the Petitioner) against First African
Remittances Limited (hereinafter called the Respondent) on 28th July, 2009 and
the Respondent's submissions of 28th August, 2009; <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:19.65pt;margin-right:22.3pt;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes">Considering Sections 138
and 139 of the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651) on the functions and powers of the
National Labour Commission; <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:21.1pt;margin-right:20.85pt;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes">Having examined the
written submissions of the Petitioner and the Respondent, and allowed the two
parties to meet with the Commission; <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:19.9pt;margin-right:88.3pt;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes">The facts of the case
and pleadings may be summed up as follows: <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12.2pt;margin-right:221.25pt;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes">The Petitioner submitted
as follows that: <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:19.9pt;margin-right:19.15pt;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:50.6pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes">A. She was employed by the Respondent in May
2000. That she was first employed as a substantive Secretary to the Chief
Executive Officer and later appointed as Processing Officer and Trainer. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12.0pt;margin-right:18.95pt;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:48.95pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes">B. In July, 2008 she was asked by the respondent to "go home” over suspicion of being an accomplice in an alleged
computer fraud in her department <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:18.0pt;margin-right:25.9pt;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:45.35pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes">C. She was asked by a delegation from CID
Headquarters to assist in the investigation of the issue. After interrogation,
she was asked to write a statement of her job description which she did. She
was then asked by the CID to return to work but the Respondent told her to go
home whilst investigation was been carried out <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:21.6pt;margin-right:30.95pt;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:49.2pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes">D. Up to date the case
has not been determined and she remains on indefinite interdiction without
salary. All efforts to get the Respondent to decide on the case have proved
futile. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:21.6pt;margin-right:196.05pt;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes">The Respondent submitted as follows that: <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:13.9pt;margin-right:45.1pt;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:44.4pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes">E. The Petitioner was
employed as a receptionist on the 2nd May, 2002 and worked in various
capacities in the Executive Chairman's Office, data entry Section, cashiering
section and then processing section. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:34.3pt;margin-right:25.9pt;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:44.4pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes">F. The Petitioner's appointment was terminated
in July, 2008