NATIONAL LABOURT COMMISSION (NLC) vs. POLYTECHNIC TEACHERS’ ASSOCIATION (POTAG) [2010]DLHC4341

Date	2010-11-12
Suit No.	SUIT NO. INDL/4/11
Citation No.	[2010]DLHC4341

KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU

M. C. S. SACKEY WITH MISS EFFIBA AMIHERE AND MR. PROSPER DANQUAH FOR THE APPLICANT

MR. SAMPSON OBENG WITH NANA AGYEKUM KESSE FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2010]DLHC4341
																																						<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 LABOURT COMMISSION (NLC)</a><o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>POLYTECHNIC TEACHERS’ ASSOCIATION
(POTAG) <o:p></o:p>[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. INDL/4/11&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 12TH NOVEMBER, 2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>M. C.
S. SACKEY WITH MISS EFFIBA AMIHERE AND MR. PROSPER DANQUAH 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">

MR. SAMPSON OBENG WITH NANA AGYEKUM KESSE FOR
THE RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</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>This ruling is in respect of an application filed
by the National Labour Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant) on
25th October, 2010 against Polytechnic Teachers’ Association
(hereinafter referred to as the Respondent), for an order for the enforcement
of the orders of the Applicant against the Respondent under Section 172 of the Labour Act, 2003 (Act
651), which the Respondent has opposed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Applicant attached to the motion paper a
20-paragraph affidavit in which it stated the grounds for the application. The
Respondent, on the other hand opposed the application in a 19-paragraph
affidavit filed on 4th November, 2010.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As has been stated earlier on in this ruling the
application was brought under Section
172 of the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651) which states as follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“Where any person
fails or refuses to comply with a direction or an order issued by the
Commission, under this Act, the Commission shall make an application to the
High Court for an order to compel that person to comply with the direction or
order.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the current case, the Applicant has come before
this Court seeking an order to compel the Respondent to comply with its
decision in accordance with Section 172 of the Act as shown above. The main
ground for the application is that the Respondent has refused to comply with
the decision of the Applicant dated 15th October 2010, that it
should call off its strike action and also submit itself to compulsory
arbitration. However, the Respondent has opposed the application on the
following grounds:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; that
it is obvious and clear that its terms and conditions of service has expired
since 2008;<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; that
the Fair Wages and Salaries Commission (FWSC) was clearly not acting in good
faith but merely playing for time in order to migrate the members of the
Respondent association onto the Single Spine Salary Scheme based on the expired
terms and conditions of service to the disadvantage of the Respondent;<o:p></o:p>