FRANCIS TETTEH vs. ANTRAK GHANA LIMTED [2009]DLNLC8339

Date	2009-09-08
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2009]DLNLC8339

[2009]DLNLC8339
																																						<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" >FRANCIS TETTEH<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ANTRAK GHANA LIMTED<o:p></o:p>[NLC]<o:p></o:p><div style="font-size: medium; border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom: 1.5pt solid windowtext; padding: 31pt 31pt 1pt;">Our Ref: NLC/C-473/2007/2009/32O&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 8TH SEPTEMBER, 2009<o:p></o:p></div>FOR THE COMMISSON:<o:p></o:p>PAUL OSEI-MENSAH (MEMBER NLC)<o:p></o:p><div style="font-size: medium; border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom: 1.5pt solid windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">DECISION &nbsp;<o:p></o:p></div>FACTS<o:p></o:p>Considering the petition filed by Francis Tetteh (hereinafter called the “Petitioner") against Antrak Ghana Limited (hereinafter called the “Respondent") on 30th August, 2007 and the Respondent submission dated 8th November, 2007;<o:p></o:p>Considering sections 138 and 139 of the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651) on the functions and powers of the Commission;<o:p></o:p>Having examined the written submissions of the Petitioner and the Respondent, and allowed the two parties to meet with officers of the Commission for hearing, the facts of the case and pleadings may be summed up as follows;<o:p></o:p>The Petitioner submitted that he had been working with Antrak since 1994 as a casual worker. He added that he was given work twice in 2007 (January, 2007 and May, 2007) with the explanation that there was no work though, he saw others being given work regularly.<o:p></o:p>The Petitioner in consequence, wants the Commission to investigate the veracity of his complaint and if proven right, order the Respondent to compensate him accordingly.<o:p></o:p>In its reaction, the Respondent contended that the Petitioner was one of the numerous persons drafted on casual basis in its pool of casuals. That those persons fully understood right from inception that they would only be allocated work schedules when the specific tasks for which they were drafted fell due (normally when vessels called at the port under the Respondent's agency)<o:p></o:p>The Respondent also stated that the allocation of the task was based on the fitness level of existing casuals and their level of expertise.<o:p></o:p>The Respondent again contended that its number of vessels has drastically reduced recently thereby affecting revenue. Therefore, to ensure cost efficiency and maximise productivity during the stay of vessel, it allocates personnel who are best skilled and suited for the task to be assigned.<o:p></o:p>The Respondent further submitted that they are not obliged under any circumstances to cate work to persons merely because they exist in its pool of casuals.<o:p></o:p>The Respondent in consequence, wants the Commission to dismiss the case as without merit.<o:p></o:p>DECISION:<o:p></o:p>The Commission noted that the Petitioner was a casual worker at the Respondent Company and was in its pool of casuals who were given work as and when the Respondent's vessels arrived at the port.<o:p></o:p>The Commission also noted that the Petitioner was given work twice in a year because of his old age. Since the Petitioner was a casual worker, the Respondent had the right to either give or not to give him work. It was not imperative for the Respondent to regularly or always give the Petitioner work since he was not a permanent worker.<o:p></o:p>The Commission again noted at a hearing at its premises with both the Respondent and the Petitioner on 2nd June 2008, both parties submitted that the Petitioner never worked for six months or 200 days within a year. Since the Petitioner never worked for continuous six months or 200 days within a year and was a casual worker, he is not entitled to any form of compensation apart from his earned wages.<o:p></o:p>The Petitioner at the same hearing sub</main>