IN THE MATTER BETWEEN ERIC OKAI AND EMMANUEL LAMEE vs. ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI LIMITED [2012]DLNLC6250

Date	2012-02-09
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2012]DLNLC6250

[2012]DLNLC6250
																																						<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" ><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center;
line-height:normal;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:376.5pt;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">IN THE MATTER BETWEEN ERIC OKAI AND EMMANUEL LAMEE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI LIMITED<o:p></o:p>[NLC]&nbsp; NLC/C-281/09/2012/77&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: 9TH FEBRUARY, 2012<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><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>For THE
COMMISSION<o:p></o:p>PAŬL
OSEI-MENSAH MEMBER<o:p></o:p>INTRODUCTION<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><o:p>&nbsp;</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">Eric Okai and Emmanuel Lamee lodged a complaint through Ghana
Mineworkers' Union on 21st May, 2009 with National Labour Commission against
their employers AngloGold Ashanti Limited for Unfair Termination.<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">However, they later informed National Labour Commission that the
Union had nothing to do with their case and therefore had engaged a consultant
to represent them at the Commission.<o:p></o:p>The case of the
Complainants was that they were arrested by the company's security personnel
for being suspected of attempting to steal gold concentrates whilst on duty.<o:p></o:p>They are praying the Commission for payment of their salaries from
date of termination to date and all accrued benefits.<o:p></o:p>The case of the company was that, the Complainant' appointments
were terminated on 20th December, 2007. They were arrested for allegedly
attempting to steal gold concentrates. They were subsequently interdicted and
put before an investigation committee and finally had their appointment
terminated for attempting to steal company property.<o:p></o:p>THE FINDINGS<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:
1.2pt;line-height:normal;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">The Committee's main finding was that the conduct of the
Complainant with regard to attempt to steal was suspicious. The Committee
however, had a split decision with regard to sanction to be applied. One
decision was to terminate their appointments, and the other was to give them a
benefit of the doubt and deploy them to any other site of the company's
operation.<o:p></o:p>ANALYSIS OF THE RELEVANT FACTS IN ISSUE<o:p></o:p>The Committee's findings did not state that any company's property
was found in the possession of the Complainants when they were arrested and
searched. The Committee stated that on two occasions Mr. Okai was seen picking
and throwing something on the floor of the pit and Lamee trying to cover him
from being seen. That something, no evidence was led to prove. According to the
Committee the conduct of the Complainants was very suspicious and their
explanations not convincing. That the conduct is suspicious did not mean that,
the conduct was proven to be wrong.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>DECISION<o:p></o:p>The contractual
relations between the parties are regulated by the terms of the contract of
service, Collective Agreement, as well as the Labour Act 2003, Act 651. Grounds
for termination are specified in the Collective Agreement. Nowhere is
suspicious conduct a ground for termination in the Collective Agreement.<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">The termination of the appointment of the complainants even though
complied with the notice period specified in their terms of contract, the
termination however did not comply with Section 62 of Act 2003, Act 651 or the
Collective Agreement.<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">Since the termination did not prove any ground of misconduct, it
was unfair in the light of Section 63 (4) of the Act 2003, Act 651 and also not
in accord with the Collective Agreement for the above reasons the termination was
unfair.<o:p></o:p>