LUFTHANSA GHANA AND GENERAL TRANSPORT, PETROLEUM & CHEMCAL WORKERS UNION [2015]DLNLC6244

Date	2015-12-10
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2015]DLNLC6244

[2015]DLNLC6244
																																						<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" >LUFTHANSA
GHANA<o:p></o:p>{COMPLAINANT}<o:p></o:p>AND<o:p></o:p>GENERAL
TRANSPORT, PETROLEUM &amp; CHEMCAL WORKERS UNION<o:p></o:p>{RESPONDENT}<o:p></o:p>[NLC]<o:p></o:p>NLC/C-390/2015/43&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: 10TH
DECEMBER, 2015<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>The undisputed facts of the case are that the Complainant on July
3, 2015 notified the Chief Labour Officer, the Union and the Minister of
Transport of its intention to declare redundant all its 14 workers.<o:p></o:p>The Union in a letter dated July 7, 2015 proposed seven (7 ) items
for negotiation as redundancy package all of which except the redundancy pay,
were successfully negotiated. The Complainant in a letter dated 3rd August,
2015 requested the Commission's intervention in the determination of the
redundancy pay as parties were deadlocked on same. The deadlocked position was
as stated below<o:p></o:p>Complainant's Position<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">One month pay for each year of service for employees who had
served less than 10 years' service and 1.5 months' pay for each year of service
for employees who had served 10 years and above.<o:p></o:p>Respondent's Position<o:p></o:p>Five (5) months' pay for each year of service across board.<o:p></o:p>However, when the parties appeared before the Commission, the
Respondents dropped their claim to there (3) months' salary for each year of
service across board.<o:p></o:p>The Respondents' submitted that contrary to the Complainant's
assertion that it was folding up its operations in Ghana because the route was
unprofitable, the Complainant had shares in Brussels Airline which had taken
over its operations in Ghana. The folding up was therefore because of the
strategy it had adopted and not because the Ghana route was not profitable.<o:p></o:p>The two witnesses called by the Respondent had no idea about the
Complainant's profit and loss position. Mr. Jonathan Awletey formerly, with the
Complainants' Sales Department relied only on the sales made by the Complainant
to say it was making profits. He had no idea that expenses incurred must be
deducted from the sales made before determining the profitability or otherwise
of the company.<o:p></o:p>The Respondents did not also provide any evidence in support of
their claim that the industry practice of redundancy pay was three (3) months'
pay for each year of service. The Respondents failed to establish the basis of
their demand for three months' pay for each year of service.<o:p></o:p>The Commission is however of the opinion that taking into account
the salary levels of the affected workers, the graduated offer made by the
Complainant will not inure to the benefit of all the workers.<o:p></o:p>The Commission having considered the evidence before it and being
mindful of the need and to ensure equity and fairness hereby orders that the
Respondent should pay the affected workers a redundancy pay of two (2) months'
salary for each year of service across board.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>