J. K. AGYARBENG & 62 ORS vs. SG/SSB BANK LTD (NOW SOCIETE GENERALE GHANA) [2015]DLSC3230

Date	2015-06-17
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/11/2015
Citation No.	[2015]DLSC3230

AKUFFO (MS.) JSC (PRESIDING)

GBADEGBE JSC

AKOTO BAMFO (MRS) JSC

BENIN JSC

AKAMBA JSC

P. KWAMINA BAIDEN ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/ APPELLANT.

AKOTO AMPAW ESQ. WITH HIM ALEX OSEI MANTEY FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS.

[2015]DLSC3230
																																						<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" >J.&nbsp;
K.&nbsp; AGYARBENG &amp; 62 ORS<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SG/SSB BANK LTD (NOW SOCIETE
GENERALE GHANA)<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT, 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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/11/2015&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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: 17TH
JUNE, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>P.
KWAMINA BAIDEN ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/<o:p></o:p>APPELLANT.
<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">

AKOTO
AMPAW ESQ. WITH HIM ALEX OSEI MANTEY FOR THE
PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

</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">

AKUFFO (MS.) JSC (PRESIDING), GBADEGBE JSC, AKOTO
BAMFO (MRS) JSC, BENIN JSC, AND AKAMBA JSC<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">

JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>BENIN, JSC:
-<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The plaintiffs/respondents/respondents,
hereafter called the respondents, were employees of the defendant/appellant/appellant
bank, hereafter called the appellant. The relationship of employer-employees was
terminated when the appellant decided to embark upon a re-organisation exercise
which entailed the down-sizing of its staff. To this end the appellant issued a
notice dated 13 December 2001, tendered in evidence as Exhibit A addressed to
the Chairman of the Local Union and copied to the Chairman of the Senior Staff
Association(SSA). For its full force and effect, we quote exhibit A here: <o:p></o:p>‘BANK
RE-ORGANISATION<o:p></o:p>Owing
to full scale implementation of the Flexcube programme and other Transformation
initiatives it has now become necessary for the bank to re-organise its core
structure for competitive advantage.<o:p></o:p>The
need thereof re has arisen for the rightsizing of staff by 28th
February 2002.<o:p></o:p>In
line with the requirements of our Collective Bargaining Agreement (Item 11.3
under redundancy) we have to schedule a meeting between the Local Union and Management
Representatives to negotiate on the benefits package that will be paid to the
affected staff.<o:p></o:p>In
this regard we are proposing that the Standing Joint Negotiation Committee
should meet on the 21 December 2001 for the above purpose’.<o:p></o:p>It
is apparent that the meeting could not convene on 21 December 2001; there is
nothing on the record to indicate that the meeting was held. What is undisputed
is that the appellant had decided to embark upon a re-organisation exercise
which necessitated a reduction in staff hence the decision to invoke the
redundancy provision under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). It is to
be noted from the onset that the CBA was applicable to only the junior staff,
otherwise known as the unionized staff. Exhibit A gave no indication as to
which members of staff were to be affected by the exercise. Thus subsequent to
exhibit A the appellant issued a circular, exhibit B, on 11 January 2002
addressed to all members of staff in which it reiterated the subject-matter of &nbsp;re-organisation and redundancy. It stated
further that:<o:p></o:p>‘In
order to ensure a smooth and uninterrupted staff rationalization exercise,
members of staff who wish to be considered for separation benefits packages are
invited to forward their letters of intent to Head, Human Resources Management
Department by 25th January 2002.<o:p></o:p>The
separation is planned to be in two phases. The first batch will leave at the
end of January 2002 and the final batch 28 February 2002’&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>By
exhibit B the appellant was inviting the staff to volunteer for the redundancy
exercise. The appellant later explained that if enough staff did not volunteer
for separation then they would embark upon compulsory lay-off. A number of
staff volunteered to accept the offer to go home. But what remained unresolved
was the severance benefits package, which according to the respondents was to
be negotiated by the Standing Joint Negotiation Committee (SJNC) comprising the
appellant, the Local Union, the &nbsp;SSA and
the Industrial and Commercial Workers Union (ICU). The undisputed evidence on
record is that the joint committee met a couple of times but did not reach any
conclusion before the appellant began implementing the programme and started
laying off some staff who had volunteered to go. According to the appellant,
the n</main>