NATIONAL LABOUR COMMISSION vs. ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI [2010]DLHC4334

Date	2010-06-24
Suit No.	SUIT NO. INDLM/20/09
Citation No.	[2010]DLHC4334

KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

MR. MOHAMMED ATTAH FOR THE APPLICANT

MR. KIZITO BAYOU FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2010]DLHC4334
																																						<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="OLE_LINK1">NATIONAL
LABOUR COMMISSION<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (INDUSTRIAL/LABOUR DIVISION),
ACCRA]<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">

SUIT NO. INDLM/20/09&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 24TH JUNE, 2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MR. MOHAMMED
ATTAH FOR THE APPLICANT<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">

</div>CORAM: <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">

KWABENA
ASUMAN-ADU, 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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>Ninety-Four ex-employees of Anglogold Ashanti who
describe themselves as members of the AGA 2007 EARLY RETIREE ASSOCIATION filed
a petition at the National Labour Commission on 7th March 2008 that
their end of service benefit was short paid, so the Commission should order the
Respondent to pay the difference to them. The Commission went into the case and
ordered the Respondent Company to calculate the difference between the
Redundancy Package and the early retirement benefit in the case of each of the
Petitioners and pay the difference to each of them. A copy of the decision was
sent to the Respondent Company on 3rd April 2009 and it was ordered
to pay the difference forthwith. The Respondent, however, did not comply with
the order so the Applicant has applied to this Court under Section 172 of the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651) and Order 19 R 1 (2) of CI 47 for the
enforcement of its order.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>According to the Applicant, the Commission arrived
at its decision against the Respondent because after listening to the parties
and perusing documents of the parties filed, it found that the Petitioners did
not voluntarily opt out for early retirement and were offered a package which
was not negotiated and exited simultaneously with workers who were declared
redundant and paid under a negotiated package higher than the Petitioners, even
though both were earmarked under an employee rationalization exercise which was
intended to reduce staff.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Respondent opposed the application in an
Affidavit filed on 29th July, 2009 and in supplementary Affidavit
filed on 5th November, 2009 on grounds that it is misconceived and
without merit. It argued that it sent its written comment on the petition to
the Applicant who then invited the parties to a meeting to discuss the
petition. The said meeting was adjourned on several occasions and on 2nd
September, 2008 it was rescheduled to 6th October 2008 at 2pm. It
was not until 22nd December 2008 that the Applicant held the meeting
with the Petitioners and the Respondent’s counsel to discuss the petition.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Respondent goes on to aver that at the said
meeting, the Applicant requested the Respondent to provide it with information
to help it decide the matter. The Respondent duly provided the information.
After that no further communication was heard from the Applicant until 3rd
April 2009 when the Applicant forwarded to the Respondent what purports to be
its decision on the petition.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>According to the Respondent, the decision of the
Applicant is a nullity and is in violation of the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651), the Regulations made thereunder and the Arbitration Act 1961 (Act 63) so, it is not enforceable. It avers that
the parties were never offered the opportunity to appoint arbitrator, neither
did it appoint panel members to mediate or arbitrate the dispute. The Applicant
appointed the panel members who gave the decision and did not notify the
Respondent that they were mediating or arbitrating the dispute.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The nomination of the panel and conduct of the
proceeding leading to the decision was in violation of the Labour Act, 2003 and
the Arbitration Act and the Respondent is not bound by the decision. The
decision of the Applicant is not supported in law or by the evidence on record.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Submissions made by counsel for the parties flow
from their respective affidavits. According to counsel for the Applicant, the
Applicant heard the matter under Sections
32 and 33 of LI 1822. It listened to
both parties after whi</main>