EUNICE OPOKUA OTCHERE vs. MONOLO PLANT LIMITED [2017]DLHC3806

Date	2017-06-07
Suit No.	SUIT No. IL/0046/2016
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC3806

JUSTICE GIFTY DEKYEM (MRS) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT LABOUR DIVISION 1

AUBREY TAMAKLOE ESQ FOR PLAINTIFF

WILLIAM ADDO ESQ FOR DEFENDANT

[2017]DLHC3806
																																						<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" >EUNICE OPOKUA OTCHERE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MONOLO PLANT LIMITED<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (LABOUR COURT
1), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>SUIT No. IL/0046/2016&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;7TH 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>AUBREY TAMAKLOE
ESQ FOR PLAINTIFF<o:p></o:p>WILLIAM ADDO 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">

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE GIFTY
DEKYEM (MRS) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT, LABOUR DIVISION 1<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>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">

</div>Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant, the latter being a company
registered under the laws of Ghana. Plaintiff was engaged in September, 2010.
In 2014, Plaintiff claims she fell pregnant and upon resumption from maternity
leave in May, 2014, one Klaudia Raphael, her immediate boss told her that, she
must give the company some more time before conceiving again. It is Plaintiff’s
case that, she conceived again between October/November 2015 and her belly
began to protrude visibly in February, 2016. Plaintiff averred that, on 15th
February, 2016, Defendant handed her a letter headed “REDUNDANCY”
terminating her employment on that ground. Plaintiff contends that, her
pregnancy was the reason for the termination of her appointment which amounts
to unfair termination and further that, the redundancy award was determined
unilaterally by Defendant without negotiation contrary to provisions under the
Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651). Plaintiff therefore claims against the Defendant as
follows: 1. General damages for unfair termination, 2. The payment of 5 months’
salary for each year she worked as an employee of the Defendant, as redundancy
pay and 3. 15% of all the above as costs including legal fees. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Defendant denied Plaintiff’s claim and contended that, although it
used the word ‘redundancy’ in the letter terminating her employment it was not
a redundancy and that payment made to Plaintiff were her entitlement. At
directions 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:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether or not the Plaintiff
was declared redundant by the Defendant and terminated as such. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;
mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether or not the Defendant
terminated the Plaintiff’s employment through redundancy because of her
pregnancy. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;
mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether or not the Defendant
negotiated the redundancy package with the Plaintiff. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;
mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Any other issues arising from
the pleadings <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>