THE REPUBLIC vs. THE ACTING CHIEF LABOUR OFFICER EX-PARTE BLUE SKIES STAFF ASSOCIATION [2010]DLHC4362

THE REPUBLIC vs. THE ACTING CHIEF LABOUR OFFICER EX-PARTE BLUE SKIES STAFF ASSOC... [2010]DLHC4362

Date	2010-07-02
Suit No.	SUIT NO. INDLM/7/2010
Citation No.	[2010]DLHC4362

KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU

MR. ANDREWS TETTEH FOR THE APPLICANT

MRS. SYLVIA ADUSU PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2010]DLHC4362
																																						<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">THE
REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE ACTING CHIEF LABOUR OFFICER<o:p></o:p>EX-PARTE BLUE SKIES STAFF ASSOCIATION<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/7/2010&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 2ND JULY, 2010 <o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MR.
ANDREWS TETTEH 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">

MRS. SYLVIA ADUSU, PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY
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">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>The Applicant issued
a writ of summons against the Labour Department and the Respondent herein on 25th
November 2008 claiming as follows:<o:p></o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; border: none;">A declaration that, the Plaintiff’s
 registration as a trade union on 20th May 2008 and its
 Collective Bargaining Certificate issued by the Defendants dated 11th
 July 2008 are valid.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; border: none;">A declaration that the Plaintiff has
 constitutional and legal rights to exist as a trade union independently
 and free from interference of any person.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; border: none;">A declaration that the purported
 revocation and/or intended revocation by the Defendants of the Plaintiff’s
 Bargaining certificate is unlawful, void and without any legal effect.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; border: none;">A declaration that the Plaintiff is the
 only and sole union entitled by law to negotiate a Collective Bargaining
 Agreement with Management of Blue Sky.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; border: none;">An order of perpetual injunction
 restraining the Defendants by themselves, their privies, representatives,
 agents, etc and other persons, including the Labour Commission and unions
 from interfering with Plaintiff’s right to independent existence.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; border: none;">General damages or other / further
 orders.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; border: none;">Costs.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>The writ together with the accompanying
statement of claim, were served on the Defendants and appearance was entered on
their behalf. Directions have been taken and this court is yet to fix a date
for hearing. While the case was pending parties sought leave of the court to
attempt settlement.<o:p></o:p>According to the Applicant on 23rd
March 2010 they met with the Respondent to attempt settlement. After a lengthy
meeting they could not reach amicable settlement so they indicated to the
Respondent and an officer from the Attorney General’s Department who were at
the meeting that the matter would have to be determined by the court. On the
following day the Applicant received a letter signed by the Respondent
withdrawing the Collective Bargaining Certificate issued lawfully to it. The
Applicant claims that, that action of the Respondent is contemptuous so it has
brought this application for an order for leave to attach the Respondent who is
the Acting Chief labour Officer for contempt of court. The Respondent on the
other hand has opposed the application on grounds that by withdrawing the
certificate she was performing her official function so she is not in contempt.
This Ruling is, therefore, in respect of the said application. <o:p></o:p>The Applicant contends that the letter
withdrawing the certificate which was lawfully issued to it by the Defendants
is highly contemptuous of this court since it seeks to over reach the decision
of the court in the suit which is pending and yet to be determined. It claims
that the validity or otherwise of the Collective Bargaining Certificate is what
this court is yet to determine in Suit no. INDLM/3/08 so by withdrawing it the
Respondent has arrogat</main>