IN THE MATTER BETWEEN CHRISTIANA ARYETEY & TEN (10) OTHERS AND SAFEWAY PRINTING WORKS [2011]DLNLC6247

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN CHRISTIANA ARYETEY & TEN (10) OTHERS AND SAFEWAY PRINTING... [2011]DLNLC6247

Date	2011-09-28
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2011]DLNLC6247

[2011]DLNLC6247
																																						<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" >&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
CHRISTIANA ARYETEY &amp; TEN (10) OTHERS<o:p></o:p>AND<o:p></o:p>SAFEWAY
PRINTING WORKS<o:p></o:p>[NLC]<o:p></o:p>NLC/C-585/09/2011/13D&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 28TH SEPTEMBER, 2011<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

</div>FOR THE COMMISSION<o:p></o:p>OPANIN OBENG-FOSU (MEMBER OF COMMISSION)<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:
.95pt;line-height:normal;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">Considering the petition filed by Christiana Aryetey&amp; ten (10)
others (hereinafter called the Petitioners) against Safeway Printing Works
(hereinafter called the Respondent) on October 1, 2009 and the Respondent's
submissions of October 14, 2009;<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:
.45pt;line-height:normal;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">Considering Sections 138 and 139 of the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651)
on the functions and powers of the National Labour Commission;<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:
.95pt;line-height:normal;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">Having examined the written submissions of the Petitioner and the
Respondent and having heard both parties;<o:p></o:p>The facts of the case and pleadings may be summed up as follows:<o:p></o:p>The Petitioners submit that they were employees of the Respondent
Company until May 29, 2009 when their employment were terminated giving them
one month's salary in lieu of notice.<o:p></o:p>They also submit that the reason for the termination of their
employment as stated in their termination letters is "the shrinking market
that has necessitated the cutting back of personnel."<o:p></o:p>They further submit that they believe the reason stated by the
Respondent makes their termination wrongful. They also submitted that they
believe it is a case of redundancy.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:
1.4pt;line-height:normal;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">They plead that the Commission declares the termination wrongful
and order the Respondent to pay a redundancy package to them, taking into
consideration the number of years they have served.<o:p></o:p>They finally submit that for the number of years they had worked,
they were made to do overtime but Respondent failed to pay them for overtime
worked. They plead that the Commission orders the Respondent to pay overtime
even though overtime hours were not recorded.<o:p></o:p>In response, the Respondent Company submitted that apart from
appointment letters issued to employees, they have no collective agreement with
any member of staff.<o:p></o:p>It also submits that the Petitioners' appointments were terminated
according to the rules and regulations.<o:p></o:p>When the Commission received the petition from the Petitioners, it
forwarded a copy to the Respondent Company requesting its written response.
Following that, the Commission invited both parties to a meeting on November
26, 2009 to facilitate for amicable settlement of the matter. It is to be noted
that at the first meeting, both parties were present and the Respondent Company
was represented by Mr. Harry Asamoah, the Administrative Officer and Mr.
Selasie Fumey, Counsel for Respondent. At this meeting, Counsel for Respondent
submitted to the Commission that he had the authority of his senior counsel for
the matter to be taken back to the work place to be discussed and settled
amicably. The Commission granted this request and asked both parties to report
back to the Commission, the outcome of discussions by December 17, 2009.<o:p></o:p>The Commission received a letter from the Petitioners dated
January 5, 2010, signed by one Benjamin Mingle who is their spokesperson. In
this letter, they indicated that their discussions for amicable settlement had
failed and they asked that the Commission intervened to make a final decision.<o:p></o:p>On receipt of the above letter, the Commission invited both
parties for a meeting on February 5, 2010. On this date, both parties were
present but the Petitioners came late therefore the meeting was called off. The
meeting was rescheduled for February 19, 2010. At this meeting, Counsel for
Respondent named G.D.A. Laryea submitted to the Commission that it did not have
the mandate of the Respondent to negotiate. He therefore sought for
adjournment. The meeting as a result of this development was adjourned to March
10, 2010. At the meeting on March 10, 2010, Respondent was represented by
Selasie Fumey, counsel, who asked</main>