OBIRI AKOI COLLINS vs. WESTEC SECURITY SYSTEMS (GH) LTD. [2011]DLNLC7691

Date	2011-05-05
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2011]DLNLC7691

[2011]DLNLC7691
																																						<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" >OBIRI AKOI
COLLINS<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>WESTEC
SECURITY SYSTEMS (GH) LTD.<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">

</div>FOR THE COMMISSON: <o:p></o:p>OPANIN OBENG-FOSU (MEMBER, NLC)<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">

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

</div>Considering the petition filed by Obiri Akoi
Collins (hereinafter called the "Petitioner”) against Westec Security
Systems Limited (hereinafter called “Respondent”) on 27th July, 2010 and Respondent submissions dated 12th October,
2010; <o:p></o:p>Considering Sections 138 and 139 of the
Labour Act 2003 (Act 651) on the
functions and powers of the Commission; <o:p></o:p>Having examined the oral and written
submissions of the Petitioner and the written response of the Respondent, the
facts of the case and pleadings may be summed up as follows: The Petitioner
submitted that he was employed by Westec Security Services on 14th April, 2004
and worked up to 30th June, 2010 when he left the company due to personal
problem with one of his bosses. He stated that he sent a resignation letter to
Management but, one of the Management staff told him that he would solve the
problem so, there was no need to tender the letter. When the problem was not
resolved after 30th June, 2010, he left the company. <o:p></o:p>The Petitioner also
submitted that the Respondent took his June, 2010 salary as payment in lieu of notice since, he did not
give Management a month's notice before leaving having worked for more than
three years. <o:p></o:p>The Petitioner again
submitted that apart from thirteen (13) days leave he enjoyed, he never went on
leave throughout his employment in the Respondent's company. <o:p></o:p>The Petitioner in
consequence, wants the Commission to order the Respondent to commute his
accumulated leave to cash and pay him accordingly, since, he is no
longer in its employment. He stated that he was entitled to 15 days leave after
the year of his appointment. These are: <o:p></o:p>2005 - 15 leave days <o:p></o:p>2006 - 15 leave days <o:p></o:p>2007 - 15 leave days <o:p></o:p>2008 - 15 leave days <o:p></o:p>2009 - 15 leave days <o:p></o:p>June, 2010 – 7 leave
days <o:p></o:p>Total = 82 leave days - 13 days leave = 69 leave days <o:p></o:p>Though the Respondent
did not honour the Commission's invitations, in its written reaction, the
Respondent confirmed that the Petitioner was employed in April, 2004 and left
its employment on 30th June, 2010. <o:p></o:p>The Respondent submitted
that the Petitioner upon a formal request, was granted ten (10) days leave in
2007 and three (3) days leave in 2008. These thirteen (13) days were counted against
the Petitioner's outstanding leave. <o:p></o:p>The Respondent again
submitted that the Petitioner absented himself for seven consecutive days and
was considered as having vacated his post. It added that the Petitioner was
summarily dismissed in accordance with its Condition of Service. <o:p></o:p>