INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION (ICU) vs. SEAWELD ENGINEERING LIMITED [2015]DLNLC7624

Date	2015-12-28
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2015]DLNLC7624

[2015]DLNLC7624
																																						<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" >INDUSTRIAL AND
COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION (ICU)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SEAWELD
ENGINEERING LIMITED<o:p></o:p>[NLC]<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;mso-pagination:none;
border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">Our Ref:&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 28TH
DECEMBER, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>FOR THE COMMISSON: <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">

MR.
FIDELIS PATRICE SEDDOH (SOLE ARBITRATOR)<o:p></o:p>

</div>1.0 INTRODUCTION
<o:p></o:p>By a letter dated 28th October, 2016 with
reference NLC/C-206/016/640, the
National Labour Commission appointed Fidelis Patrice Seddoh Esq. as Sole
Arbitrator in respect of the dispute between ICU (Claimant) and Seaweld
Engineering Limited (Respondent) for determination of the issues. <o:p></o:p>1.2 Upon receipt
of the letter from National Labour Commission, the Sole Arbitrator invited the
parties for Arbitration Management Conference on the 4th November, 2016. <o:p></o:p>At the meeting with the parties, Mrs. Victoria Ofosuhene-Darkwah was appointed &nbsp;&nbsp;ecorder.
Ground rules and other administrative rules were laid out (Attached to this
report as "Appendix A"). <o:p></o:p>1.4 The Complainant was represented by Mr. Solomon Kotei, the
General Secretary and Mr. John Aboradze Hayfron, the Principal Industrial
Relation Officer whilst the Respondent was represented by its Counsel, Mr.
Daniel Awuku Ofosu and was accompanied by Mrs. Esther Forson, the HR Manager. <o:p></o:p>1.5 The Parties agreed
to rely on their written submissions but to ask either party for clarification
of any matter raised where deemed necessary. <o:p></o:p>2.0 THE ISSUES <o:p></o:p>The parties agreed on
the following issues to be determined by the arbitrator: <o:p></o:p>2.1 Whether or not the Claimants are entitled to the 5%
Salary increment for the year 2015 as promised by then Rig Manager. <o:p></o:p>Whether or not the
Claimants are entitled to the 13th Month Salary. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>2.2 2.4 The Parties mutually agreed that an issue stating
non-commitment of the Respondent to negotiate be dropped as both parties had
given firm promise to continue with the process. <o:p></o:p>