NATIONAL LABOUR COMMISSION vs. SOUTHERN FRIED CHICKEN (SFC) [2011]DLCA7939

Date	2011-02-17
Suit No.	SUIT NO.HI/97/2008
Citation No.	[2011]DLCA7939

KANYOKE J.A. (PRESIDING)

OFOE J.A.

ADUAMA-OSEI J.A.

MR. KWABLA SENANU FOR RESPONDENT

MR. CORNEILLUS SACKEY FOR APPELLANT

[2011]DLCA7939
																																						<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" >NATIONAL LABOUR COMMISSION<o:p></o:p>(PLAINITFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SOUTHERN FRIED
CHICKEN (SFC)<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT
NO.HI/97/2008&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 17TH FEBRUARY, 2011<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR.
KWABLA SENANU FOR RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

MR.
CORNEILLUS SACKEY FOR APPELLANT<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

KANYOKE J.A. (PRESIDING),
OFOE J.A., ADUAMA-OSEI J.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div>OFOE, J.A.<o:p></o:p>The brief sequence of
events to this appeal can be stated as follows:&nbsp;
The Food and Allied Workers Union of the Ghana Federation of Labour
filed a petition with the National Labour Commission against the Southern Fried
Chicken (SFC).&nbsp; Their petition alleged
arbitrary dismissal, harassment and intimidation of its members by their employer,
Southern Fried Chicken.&nbsp; The Commission
sat on the case and based on its findings made orders which Southern Fried
Chicken found unacceptable and therefore refused to comply with.&nbsp; As mandated by section 172 of the Labour Act
2003, Act 651 the Commission proceeded to the High Court for an order
compelling the Respondent to comply with its orders.&nbsp; The High Court refused the order, hence this
appeal.&nbsp; I will refer to the Commission
as the appellant and Southern Fried Chicken as the respondent.&nbsp; Where it becomes necessary to refer to the
Food and Allied Workers Union, I will refer to them as the petitioner.<o:p></o:p>What were the salient facts
put before the appellant and what was its decision and what orders did it seek
to enforce at the trial High Court? Before the appellant was a complaint from
the petitioner dated the 24th August, 2005 alleging arbitrary
dismissals, harassment and intimidation by the respondent.&nbsp; It was their case that the Managing Director,
Bishop Dr. Paul Fynn had “adopted a strategy to frustrate trade union
activities in the company by systematically and arbitrary dismissing workers.&nbsp; They had had cause to complain about the
“entrenched management style” of the respondent to management but to no avail.&nbsp; Their complaint made mention, also of an
incident involving a waitress whose dismissal after the intervention of the
union was reduced to a warning but was later dismissed by the Managing Director
because he thought the warning was not deterring enough.&nbsp; It was the position of the Union that the
management style of the Managing Director was such that it might result in
industrial unrest.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;On receipt of the petition, the appellant
invited the respondent company through its Managing Director to submit its
comments to the complaints.&nbsp; The
respondent submitted its comments accordingly, under the signature of the
Company’s Managing Consultant, E.T. Ayi-Bonte. In respect of the intimidation
and the harassment, the respondent denied.&nbsp;
They admitted however that they were yet to put in place Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA) but explained that until that was done the Company
was using its rules and regulations and General Conditions of Service for the
staff.<o:p></o:p>What appeared to be the
main contention between the parties i.e. the appellant and respondent and
relevant to this appeal, is the case of the waitress, Lucy Boadi.&nbsp; She was alleged to have submitted a bill to
the Managing Director’s guest which included an amount of ¢62,000 being the
cost of one family size Pizza which the guest did not order as part of his
meal.&nbsp; The waitress, Lucy Boadi admitted
the wrong and refunded the amount.&nbsp; She
was dismissed but on the intervention of the Union the dismissal was withdrawn
and she was issued a warning letter.&nbsp; The
matter would have ended there but for the Managing Director’s reversal of the
decision to warn Miss Boadi and his unilateral act of re-instating her
dismissal.<o:p></o:p>After the appellant
Commission had gone into the complaints, including that of the waitress, it came
out with its decision that it was not permitted for Management to unilaterally
decide when collective agreement negotiations should begin and therefore
ordered Management to convene a meeting of the negotiation committee without
further delay in accordance with section 104 of Act 651.&nbsp; In respect of Miss Patience Tetteh, who was
reassigned by the respondent the appellant found nothing wrong with the
reassignment and dismissed this complaint.&nbsp;
In respect of Miss Boadi, the appellant found her dismissal on the
instructions of the Managing Director wrongful.&nbsp;
The Commission stated:<o:p></o:p>“The
Commission is of the firm stand that Miss Boadi did not change anything on the
bill presented in order to deceive or obtain some benefit”.<o:p></o:p>The Commission therefore
orders the reinstatement of Miss Lucy Boadi or in the alternative be paid all
salaries/wages effective the date of the purported dismissal till date of this
decision.&nbsp; Additionally the Respondent is
ordered to pay Six month salary/wages as compensation for wrongful dismissal to
Miss Boadi”.<o:p></o:p>