MRS. JANET DOE vs. SOCIAL SECURITY AND NATIONAL INSURANCE TRUST THE TRUST HOSPITAL [2015]DLCA8304

MRS. JANET DOE vs. SOCIAL SECURITY AND NATIONAL INSURANCE TRUST THE TRUST HOSP... [2015]DLCA8304

Date	2015-03-26
Suit No.	SUIT NO.: H1/191/2014
Citation No.	[2015]DLCA8304

OWUSU J. A (PRESIDING)

ACQUAYE J.A.

TORKORNOO J. A.

NII KPAKPO ADDO FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

AKOTO BAFOUR FOR DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

[2015]DLCA8304
																																						<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" >MRS. JANET DOE<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/
APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">vs.<o:p></o:p>SOCIAL SECURITY AND NATIONAL INSURANCE TRUST<o:p></o:p>(1ST
DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>THE TRUST HOSPITAL<o:p></o:p>(2ND
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL,
ACCRA]<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">

SUIT NO.: H1/191/2014 &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: 26TH MARCH, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>NII KPAKPO ADDO FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT<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">

AKOTO BAFOUR FOR
DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS<o:p></o:p>

</div><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">CORAM:<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">

OWUSU J. A
(PRESIDING), ACQUAYE J.A., TORKORNOO J. A.<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>TORKORNOO,
J. A:<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff/appellant in this suit
was employed for over 20 years at the Trust Hospital as an employee of SSNIT,
the 1st defendant/Respondent. In the High Court, her case was that
SSNIT entered into an organizational restructuring exercise which separated the
Trust Hospital from the organization. The Trust Hospital was taken over by the
2nd defendant/respondent, which had been incorporated as a separate
legal entity. This exercise made her redundant along with other staff effective
31st December 2012. <o:p></o:p>She argued that under Section 65 of the
Labor Act 2003 (Act 651), SSNIT, was required by law to negotiate a redundancy
package with her but they failed to do so. It reads -<o:p></o:p>Section 65 –
Redundancy<o:p></o:p>2) Without
prejudice to subsection (1), where an undertaking is closed down or undergoes
an arrangement or amalgamation and the close down, arrangement or amalgamation
causes <o:p></o:p>a.
severance of the legal relationship of worker and employer as it existed
immediately before the close down, arrangement or amalgamation; and <o:p></o:p>b.
as a result of and in addition to the severance that worker becomes unemployed
or suffers any diminution in the terms and conditions of employment, <o:p></o:p>the
worker is entitled to be paid by the undertaking at which that worker was
immediately employed prior to the close down, arrangement or amalgamation,
compensation, in this section referred to as ‘redundancy pay’<o:p></o:p>4.
The amount of redundancy pay and the terms and conditions of payment are
matters which are subject to negotiation between the employer or a
representative of the employer on the one hand and the worker or the trade
union concerned on the other.<o:p></o:p>Her complaint is that, without
negotiation, SSNIT paid her a compulsory exit package which comprised 3 months’
salary and salaries for the remaining twenty two months that she was to work
prior to retirement. They paid her the money with a direction to complete and
submit a handing over certificate and dis-engagement form and hand over any
property of SSNIT in her possession to the Trust Hospital administrator before
a specified date.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;She
wrote through her lawyers to protest this ‘unilaterally
and arbitrarily determined exit package’. She said that it did not take
into consideration pension contributions for the remaining 22 months that she
would have been in employment until he</main>