BRIGHT MENSAH vs. THE METROPOLITAN ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION CO. LTD [2017]DLHC3801

Date	2017-06-16
Suit No.	SUIT NO. BMISC 4/2016
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC3801

JUSTICE GIFTY DEKYEM (MRS) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT LABOUR DIVISION I ACCRA

S M ASANTE ESQ FOR PLAINTIFF

ALBERTA ANTWI ESQ FOR DEFENDANT

[2017]DLHC3801
																																						<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" >BRIGHT MENSAH<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE METROPOLITAN ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION CO. LTD<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (INDUSTRIAL/LABOUR DIVISION I), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>SUIT NO. BMISC 4/2016&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;16TH JUNE, 2017<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">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>S M ASANTE ESQ FOR PLAINTIFF<o:p></o:p>ALBERTA ANTWI ESQ FOR DEFENDANT<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">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE GIFTY DEKYEM (MRS) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT, LABOUR
DIVISION I, ACCRA<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">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>Plaintiff was until 5th June, 2015, an employee of
Defendant, the latter being a limited liability company registered under the
laws of Ghana and engaged in entertainment television programmes with its head
office in Accra. The stated reason in the letter terminating Plaintiff’s
employment (exhibit B) is that, Plaintiff refused to take part in a training
programme because of a bond condition.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Plaintiff contended that, he was not one of the persons listed for
the said training consequently the termination of his employment on that ground
without further investigation and opportunity to be heard was unlawful.
Wherefore, Plaintiff claims the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>a. Damages for the humiliation and anguish suffered and loss of
work.<o:p></o:p>b. Payment of all entitlements due to him.<o:p></o:p>c. Severance award under Article 36(d) of the Collective Bargaining<o:p></o:p>Agreement of 2013/2014 for making the plaintiff unjustly
redundant.<o:p></o:p>d. Costs.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Defendant denied Plaintiff’s claim and contended that, it informed
both the mother and local union to encourage its staff who had declined to
undergo the training to do so in order to be efficient in their
responsibilities. It is Defendant’scase that, the said trainin was necessitated
by the migration of the Defendant’s business from analogue to digital platform
and the cost of training each employee was €2,000.00 hence the need for each
employee to sign the bond. Defendant averred that, Plaintiff declined to take
part in the training because of the bond and communicated same to his
supervisor. In the circumstances, Defendant contended that, in order to promote
the interest of its business, it terminated the employment of its employees who
refused to undergo the training programme including Plaintiff.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At direction stage, the following issues were settled for trial:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;
mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<!--[endif</main>