MOSES ATTER TEYEKPITI vs. GENERAL TRANSPORT PETROLEUM AND CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION OF GHANA TUC [2013]DLNLC8349

MOSES ATTER TEYEKPITI vs. GENERAL TRANSPORT PETROLEUM AND CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION... [2013]DLNLC8349

Date	2013-07-03
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2013]DLNLC8349

[2013]DLNLC8349
																																						<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" >MOSES ATTER TEYEKPITI<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GENERAL TRANSPORT PETROLEUM AND CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION OF<o:p></o:p>GHANA TUC<o:p></o:p>[NLC]<o:p></o:p><div style="font-size: medium; border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom: 1.5pt solid windowtext; padding: 31pt 31pt 1pt;">Our Ref: NLC/C-234/2012/2013/20U&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 3RD JULY, 2013<o:p></o:p></div>FOR THE COMMISSON:<o:p></o:p>D.K.Y.VORMAVOR (DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON NLC)<o:p></o:p><div style="font-size: medium; border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom: 1.5pt solid windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">DECISION &nbsp;<o:p></o:p></div>On 30th April 2012, Mr. Moses Teyekpiti, a retired officer of the Respondent Union lodged a petition with the National Labour Commission (NLC) seeking the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; a) Ten (10) years Long Service Award<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; b) Payment for 57 days Leave Interruptions<o:p></o:p>In a response to the petition, Respondent Union confirmed that Petitioner was a Principal Industrial Relations Officer who retired from the service of Respondent Union when he attained 60 years on August 2011. That Petitioner was granted his terminal leave from 14" July, 2010 to 4th April, 2011. Therefore, Petitioner had no claims against Respondent in relation to leave interruption.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>On the issue of 10 years Long Service Award, Respondent stated that due to weak finances an understanding was reached between management and staff to pay only the last award when staff retired and that Petitioner having worked 15 years was paid the award for 15 years Long Service of his retirement package.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The NLC invited the parties for a facilitation meeting on 2nd January 2012. At that meeting Respondent stated that if Petitioner insisted on his pound of flesh in spite of being aware of the financial constraints facing the Union, it would make effort to pay him his 10 years Long Service Award as enshrined in its Article 35 of the Union Collective Agreement (CBA) which is “10 Years Service GH¢200 cash plus a Table Top Fridge."<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>Petitioner insisted on his right and so both parties agreed to comply with the provisions of the CBA.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the second relief i.e. payment of 57 days Leave Interruption the matter could not be resolved as Respondent insisted that Petitioner's leave was never interrupted and that the onus is on Petitioner to provide documentary proof to back his claim.<o:p></o:p>Accordingly that matter has been referred to the full Commission for adjudication.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>Interi