B. J. KWAME AND PRODUCE BUYING COMPANY [2011]DLCHRAJ5984

Date	2011-04-20
Suit No.	Our Ref: CHRAJ/4770/2004/249
Citation No.	[2011]DLCHRAJ5984

JOSEPH WHITTAL

[2011]DLCHRAJ5984
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B050">B. J. KWAME<o:p></o:p>(COMPLAINANT)<o:p></o:p>AND<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B050">PRODUCE BUYING COMPANY<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>(CHRAJ)<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:0in;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">Our Ref: CHRAJ/4770/2004/249&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;20-4-2011<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">DECISION<o:p></o:p>

</div>FACTS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In a complaint received on
19th November 2004, the Complainant stated that he was an employee
of the Produce Buying Company (Respondent) until 31st December 1999
when the Respondent declared him redundant. The Complainant further stated that
under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) of the Ghana Cocoa Marketing
Board, the employer was required to protect the benefits of all persons who
were declared redundant; the provisions also specified how the benefits were to
be managed.<o:p></o:p>The Complainant explained that
contrary to the provision of the CBA that allowed the Respondent to protect the
benefits of affected staff, the Respondent deducted an amount of seven million
three hundred and fifty-two thousand three hundred and sixty six cedis, fifty
pesewas (¢7,352,366.54) from his redundancy benefits and purchased shares in
the Produce Buying Company without his knowledge and consent. The Respondent
consequently held on to the dividend accruing from the shares from 1st
January 2000 to 2nd September 2004.<o:p></o:p>The Complainant further
averred that the Respondent also effected some deductions from the benefits of
other redundant staff and invested it on their behalf. However, when the
affected staff made claim for refund of the deducted amount, the Respondent
negotiated the terms of payment with them and paid their monies to them. The
Complainant therefore argued that the Respondent should employ the same approach
of negotiations in addressing his case.<o:p></o:p>INVESTIGATIONS<o:p></o:p>The Comments from the Respondent on the complaint indicated that,
prior to the Respondent effecting the deductions from the staff's benefits, it
entered into an agreement with the Local Union and Senior Staff Association,
who represented the entire members of staff. As part of the agreement, the
Union and Association agreed that Management should invest the amount deducted
in shares on their behalf.<o:p></o:p>The Respondent therefore
argued that it was erroneous for the Complainant to make the claim that the
deductions made by the Respondent was without his consent and knowledge. The
Respondent further disclosed to the Commission that it had paid the full amount
of ¢7,352,366.54 that it deducted from the Complainant's benefits to him and
therefore the subsequent claim by the Complainant for the payment of 50% of
interest on the amount already paid to him was unfair. Nonetheless, the
Respondent expressed willingness to hold personal discussions with the Complainant
on his claim for compensation and therefore requested the Commission to direct
the Complainant to report at its office.<o:p></o:p>Upon this request, the Commission informed the Complainant and
advised him to consider the option of resolving the issue with his former
employer considering their willingness to have his concerns addressed. In
response, the Complainant disclosed that he was indisposed and as such could
not commute from Kumasi to the Respondent's Office in Accra, but rather opted
for telephone discussions with the Respondent.<o:p></o:p>The Commission informed the Respondent about the Complainant's
request. The Complainant later on informed the Commission that his attempts to
address the matter through telephone discussion with the Respondent proved
unsuccessful because the proposed discussions on phone could not materialise.<o:p></o:p>The Commission therefore negotiated on behalf of the Complainant.
As a result, the Respondent offered to pay an amount of GH¢480.00 as
compensation to the Complainant which was accepted by the Complainant. A cheque
of four hundred and eighty Ghana cedis (GH¢ 480.00) was presented to the
Commission on behalf of the Complainant. The Commission consequently paid the
cheque into the Complainant's Bank account.<o:p></o:p>OBSERVATIONS<o:p></o:p>