EMMANUEL REST TETEKPE vs. YADCO GHANA LIMITED [2011]DLNLC7618

Date	2011-10-03
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2011]DLNLC7618

[2011]DLNLC7618
																																						<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" >EMMANUEL RE<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Courier New&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Courier New&quot;;color:#00B050">ST TETEKPE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>YADCO GHANA
LIMITED<o:p></o:p>[NLC]<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;mso-pagination:none;
border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">Our Ref: NLC/C-758/2010/2011/45D&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 3RD
OCTOBER, 2011<o:p></o:p>

</div>FOR THE COMMISSON: <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">

PAUL OSEI-MENSAH
(MEMBER)<o:p></o:p>

DECISION<o:p></o:p>

</div>In a letter dated 21st October, 2011 Mr
Emmanuel Rest Tettekpe lodged a complaint with NLC against his former Employer
Yadco Ghana Limited regarding, according to him, "Wrongful/Unfair
termination of fixed-term employment contract". <o:p></o:p>The relief the complainant
was seeking was compensation for, loss of monthly salaries of a fixed term
employment of 18 months; loss of use of company car for unexpired period of the
contract and any other compensation the NLC deems necessary. <o:p></o:p>The Respondent company's
defence of the relief by the Complainant was that the Complainant was not given
a fixed term contract and therefore was not entitled to 18 months salaries. <o:p></o:p>Issues to be determined
by the Commission are whether the complainant was appointed for a fixed term contract
of service and whether the termination of his appointment was wrongful or unfair. <o:p></o:p>PROCEEDINGS <o:p></o:p>National Labour
Commission (NLC) initially facilitated the resolution of the dispute but
parties failed to reach an agreement to settle the dispute. <o:p></o:p>Following the failure to
resolve through facilitation process, NLC started hearing the matter. In all,
there were five hearings. The
complainant gave evidence himself and did not call any witness. The Respondent was represented by a counsel and also
called two witnesses. <o:p></o:p>EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY BOTH PARTIES <o:p></o:p>The complainant was
unable to give any evidence to the effect that his appointment was a fixed term
contract. The Respondent company did not prove that the termination of the
appointment of the complainant was carried out through any Condition of Service
or Collective Agreement or in accordance with the Labour Act 2003, Act 651. <o:p></o:p>ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF FACTS <o:p></o:p>Prior to his appointment, the Respondent company and the complainant drew up