NATIONAL LABOUR COMMISSION vs. MAP SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED [2012]DLHC4338

Date	2012-01-25
Suit No.	SUIT NO. INDLM/45/11
Citation No.	[2012]DLHC4338

KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU

DR. SAMUEL SELASI AGBESI FOR THE APPLICANT

NAA ODOFOLEY NORTEY FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2012]DLHC4338
																																						<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>MAP SHIPPING COMPANY 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. INDLM/45/11&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;&nbsp;DATE: 25TH JANUARY, 2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>DR.
SAMUEL SELASI AGBESI 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">

NAA
ODOFOLEY NORTEY 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>On 23rd day of August, 2007,
the ex-workers of MAP Shipping Company Limited allegedly petitioned the
National Labour Commission, (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant) against
unfair termination of their employment by MAP Shipping Company Limited,
(hereinafter referred to as the Respondent). The Applicant invited a response
from the Respondent after which it went into the matter. After hearing the case
the Applicant decided the case in favour of the Petitioners and ordered the
Respondent to negotiate a redundancy package with the Petitioners within
fourteen working days of the receipt of the decision and report the outcome to
the Applicant after seven days of the conclusion of the negotiation.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The decision was communicated to the
Respondent on 9th September, 2009 but the Respondent refused to
comply with it. The applicant, therefore, filed the current motion for an order
of this court to enforce the decision of the Applicant which the Respondent has
opposed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>According to the Applicant the
Respondent has no intention to comply with the decision and it will persist in
such contemptuous behavior unless compelled by the enforcement orders of this
court. It goes on to aver that considering the fact that the Petitioners ought
to have been paid whatever they were entitled to in 2002 when the Respondent
purported to transfer the Petitioners to another subcontractor, the Respondent
has wrongfully held on to their entitlements from 2002 up to this day. In the
circumstance, the Respondent ought to be made to pay interest on their
entitlements at the current bank lending rate from 2002 until date of final
payment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Respondent on the other hand has
opposed the application on grounds that apart from the name of Jude K.
Ezeh-Anyadi, the petition did not contain the name of any other casual
employees, nor was the petition signed by the said Jude K. Ezeh-Anyadi as
required by the Applicant’s own Regulations.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Respondent claims that it denied
the averments in the said petition in a letter sent to the Applicant. In spite
of the fatally flawed nature of the petition, the Applicant invited the parties
to a hearing in October, 2008 without providing the parties with a list of
mediators as required by the Applicant’s own Regulations. It avers that at the
meeting it was explained to the parties that the purpose of the meeting was to
appreciate the respective parties’ position. Accordingly either party was
requested to state its case. After Jude Ezeh-Anyadi had repeated the contents
of his petition the Respondent’s lawyer also stated the Respondent’s position.
The Applicant then adjourned the matter to 18th December, 2008
without stating the purpose of the business for that day.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Respondent contends that on 27th
November, 2008, the Applicant issued a notice directed at the Respondent to
attend a “meeting/hearing” on 18th December, 2008 and that if the
Respondent failed to attend the hearing the Applicant shall proceed to
determine the matter pursuant to section 7(2) of its Regulations. Without
arbitration, mediation or further hearing the evidence of the parties, the
Applicant on 7th December, 2009 handed down its decision and ordered
the Respondent to negotiate a redundancy package with the petitioners within
fourteen days.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>According to the Respondent the
decision sought to be enforced is not supportable in law or by the facts
available to the Applicant. Also the constit</main>