RAYMOND N.D. LARBIE vs. PROCREDIT [2009]DLNLC8358

Date	2009-10-21
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2009]DLNLC8358

[2009]DLNLC8358
																																						<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" >RAYMOND N.D. LARBIE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>PROCREDIT<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-189/2009/45L&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 21ST OCTOBER, 2009<o:p></o:p></div>FOR THE COMMISSON:<o:p></o:p>OPANIN OBENG-FOSU (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>On 30th &nbsp;March, 2009 the Petitioner wrote to the NLC claiming that he was forced by<o:p></o:p>management to resign as the Client Advisor of the respondent company, contrary to the staff conditions of employment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>He wanted the NLC to declare the resignation null and void and order a negotiation of a<o:p></o:p>compensation of package which would take into account the inconvenience caused the petitioner and the trauma he and his family had suffered as a result of the forced resignation. He lastly wanted other costs contingent to this action by management as the Commission would determine.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>The Ex-Secretary requested a RESPONSE from the respondent of Credit SLC on 01/04/09. Pro credit by its letter of April 16, 2009 acknowledged receipt of the letter but demanded al! attachments referred to in petitioner's letter to be furnished to the respondent. The attachments were sent on 23/04/09.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Respondent<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Contends that on 3rd January, 2009 petitioner made a presentation of his branch's operational results. His attitude lacked the requisite seriousness expected of an experienced Branch Manager. such attitude was a repetition of an earlier one. Formal and informal discussions had been held on several occasions to show the concern of management and specifically on 2nd February, 2009 the management board invited him to discuss their concerns. He was made aware of management's disappointment and concerns regarding his performance. The petitioner disagreed and an argument ensued.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>Management informed him that if he could not appreciate the seriousness of his conduct then it would be diflicult to work with him. A discussion on how to sever the relationship took place and it was mutually agreed to sever the relationship.<o:p></o:p>Parties discussed the way of separation and the petitioner acknowledged that the option of tendering his resignation was the preferable option for him. The petitioner's letter of 4th &nbsp;February for 15 months gross salary among others surprised the respondent. He was reminded of the earlier meeting thereafter two members of the management board visited his branch.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>On 5th February he resigned by his letter dated 5th &nbsp;February. He gave a month's notice. Management demanded an immediate resignation. He would be given a month's salary. The company made payments into his account.<o:p></o:p>