NATIONAL LABOUR COMMISSION vs. MANTRAC GNANA LIMITED [2011]DLHC4337

Date	2011-03-18
Suit No.	SUIT NO. IDLM 1/11
Citation No.	[2011]DLHC4337

KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU

DR. SAMUEL SELASSEE ADESI HOLDING THE BRIEF OF MR. DICK ANYIANDE FOR THE APPLICANT

MR. SIMON OKYERE HOLDING THE BRIEF OF MR. MARTIN KPEBU FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2011]DLHC4337
																																						<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>MANTRAC GNANA LIMITED<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. IDLM 1/11&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 18TH MARCH, 2011<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>DR. SAMUEL
SELASSEE ADESI HOLDING THE BRIEF OF MR. DICK ANYIANDE 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. SIMON
OKYERE HOLDING THE BRIEF OF MR. MARTIN KPEBU 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>The Industrial and Commercial Workers Union (ICU)
petitioned the applicant on behalf of four employees of the respondent who had
their appointments terminated by the respondent in January, 2005. The applicant
went into the matter and after due hearing, it came out with its decision on 27th
November, 2008. Its final decision was as follows:-<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“Since the
termination was not in conformity with your own Collective Agreement, that is,
a third warning after two warnings, the termination was unfair.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>You are, therefore,
ordered to pay six months pay to each of the affected ex-employees as
compensation for unfair termination and all other accrued entitlements. Payment
should be made before 31st December, 2008.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The respondent has, however, refused to comply with
the order of the applicant. So the applicant has brought this application
pursuant to Section 172 of the Labour
Act, 2003, Act 651 pleading for an order to enforce its decision
against the respondent which the respondent has opposed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The applicant claims that despite the fact that neither
of the parties has appealed against the decision and despite repeated demands
by the applicant, the respondent has refused to comply with the decision. It
goes on to aver that the respondent has no intention to comply with the
decision of the applicant and will persist in such contemptuous behavior unless
compelled by this court to do so. The applicant, therefore, pleads with the
court to order the respondent to comply with the order and also to order the
respondent to pay interest at the prevailing bank rate with effect from 31st
December, 2008 till date of final payment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As has been stated elsewhere in this judgment, the
respondent has opposed the application on grounds that the applicant erred in
deciding the matter in favour of the said four former employees of the
respondent. It claims that the antecedents of the case are that prior to the
termination of the appointments of the said employees, they were issued
warnings on two previous occasions for misconduct within a year and were found
to have misconducted themselves on the third occasion, on the same offence.
They were, therefore, given a third warning letter which was the suspension
letter which was issued prior to the completion of the investigation of the 4th
August, 2004 incident.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>According to the respondent it terminated the
appointments of the four employees because they had a bad record and since it
was entitled to terminate their appointments per Section 12 of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA) it accordingly exercised that right by terminating
their appointments. The termination of the appointments of the employees was,
therefore, fair. The applicant erred in its decision when it stated that the
two previous letters referenced PD F21/759/2003 dated 18th August,
2003 and PD F21/755/2003 dated 19th August, 2003 did not amount to
warning letters.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The</main>