NATIONAL LABOUR COMMISSION vs. MERCHANT BANK GHANA LIMITED [2013]DLHC4339

Date	2013-06-27
Suit No.	SUIT NO. INDLM/9/13
Citation No.	[2013]DLHC4339

KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU

OSCAR ASANTE NNURO FOR THE APPLICANT

PAUL OPOKU FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2013]DLHC4339
																																						<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>MERCHANT BANK GHANA 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/9/13&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: 27TH JUNE, 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>OSCAR
ASANTE NNURO 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">

</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">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>This ruling is in respect of motion on notice
filed by the Applicant on 4th March, 2013 for an order for the
enforcement of its decision given on 1st August, 2012 against the
Respondent under Order 19 of CI. 47 and Section 173 of the Labour Act, 2003
(Act 651).&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The case of the Applicant is that it got
information of the intention of the Petitioner, Union of Industry, Commerce and
Finance Workers (UNICOF) to withdraw its service so it invited the Union and
the Respondent to a facilitation meeting on 6th June, 2012. After
hearing both parties the Applicant ordered the members of the Union to go back
to work. They were further ordered to issue a notice of intention to strike to
the Commission, remove all red bands and avoid disclosing anything to the
public.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By a letter dated 6th June, 2012 UNICOF
served notice on the Applicant to embark on strike action following the unfair
termination of one Rev. Jonas Koranteng-Smart, Chairman of UNICOF. The
Applicant, therefore, invited the Respondent and the UNICOF members to a
hearing on 13th June, 2012. On that day the Applicant held a facilitation
meeting between the two parties where the Applicant advised the parties to stay
all actions and return to the status quo ante. They were to reconsider their
various positions and report to the Applicant on Monday 18th June,
2012. The Applicant held another facilitation meeting between the Union and the
Respondent on 20th June, 2012 where it requested both parties to
submit their written submissions by Friday 27th June, 2012.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the basis of its preliminary investigations and
the written submissions of both parties, the Applicant held that the Respondent
had not met the burden of proof imposed on it by law and, therefore, considered
the termination of the appointment of Rev. Jonas Koranteng-Smart void ab
initio. It as a result ordered the Respondent to reinstate Rev. Jonas
Koranteng-Smart immediately. The Respondent has, however, refused to comply
with the order of the Applicant despite several attempts made by the Union to
enforce compliance, hence the instant application seeking the order of this court
to enforce compliance of its order for the reinstatement of Rev. Jonas
Koranteng-Smart.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The case of the Respondent on the other hand is
that the said Rev. Jonas Koranteng-Smart was at all times material before June,
2012 an employee of the Respondent who was subject to the Respondent Bank’s
internal rules and regulations. On 27th day of March, 2012, the
Respondent Bank held its Annual General Meeting which all shareholders were
expected to attend. The workers made up of unionized staff and non-unionized
staff who held shares in the Bank but which shares were being managed by the
Board of Trustees were also expected to attend the said Annual General Meeting.
It was, however, not possible for all workers to attend same. The Board of
Trustees, therefore, met and appointed Rev. Jonas Koranteng-Smart as a proxy of
the Board to attend such a meeting on behalf of the Board who controls the
shares of the workers at the Bank but not in his capacity as the chairman of
the Union.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After the meeting and before an official minutes
of the Annual General Meeting could come out, Rev. Jonas Koranteng-Smart came
out and made certain serious allegations against the Board and the Management
of the Bank to members of the Union which allegations were untrue, and also
misused the email network and divulge information without requisite authority
and consent. Management of the Respondent Bank saw this as indiscipline at the
highest level for which reason he was queried and subsequently invited to appear
before a Disciplinary Committee to explain himself in accordance with the
Collective Bargaining Agreement existing at the Bank. He, however, refused to
submit himself on two different occasions saying</main>