ISAAC ASIAM & 2 ORS. vs. GHANA TOURISM AUTHORITY [2019]DLHC10280

Date	2019-07-25
Suit No.	SUIT NO. IL/086/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC10280

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS).

MR TAPHA TASSAH COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS PRESENT

MR CHRISTIAN LEBRECHT MALM-HESSE HOLDING BRIEF FOR KWAKU

AGYEMANG COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPLICANT PRESENT

[2019]DLHC10280
																																						<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" >ISAAC ASIAM &amp; 2 ORS.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA TOURISM AUTHORITY<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">MR CHRISTIAN LEBRECHT MALM-HESSE
HOLDING BRIEF FOR KWAKU AGYEMANG, COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPLICANT PRESENT<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">HER
LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS).<o:p></o:p>

</div>MOTION ON NOTICE FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS<o:p></o:p>RULING<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">This application is a request by
the defendant/applicant to the Court for an order staying proceedings in the
substantive suit and for a further order directing the plaintiffs/respondents
to exhaust the dispute and grievance procedures as contained in the Collective
Bargaining Agreement between the defendant/applicant and the
plaintiffs/respondents who are the employees of the defendant/applicant and are
also members of the Public Service Workers Union of the Trades Union Congress
of Ghana.<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">According to the
defendant/applicant it executed a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with
the Public Service Workers Union of the Trades Union Congress on 1st
January, 2006 and which agreement is still&nbsp;
in existence and that the said agreement which is attached to the
defendant’s application as Exhibit ‘A’ provides that matters affecting the
defendant/applicant’s employees including the plaintiffs/respondents shall
first be dealt with in accordance with the grievance and dispute procedures
under the said agreement before the matter is hauled to any dispute resolution
forum. <o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">It is the applicant’s contention
that the plaintiffs/respondents have failed to fully exhaust the dispute and
grievance procedures provided for in the Collective Bargaining Agreement before
resorting to this Court action and therefore the Court should stay proceedings
in this matter and order the plaintiffs to fully exhaust the said procedures
before any further steps is taken in this matter.<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">The plaintiffs/respondents have
opposed this application on the ground that it is only a ruse by the
defendant/applicant to throw dust into the eyes of the Court since the said Collective
Bargaining Agreement cannot oust the jurisdiction of this Court to determine
this matter. <o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">The plaintiffs also contend that
though they had presented petitions to their Unit Heads and to the National
Labour Commission before commencing this suit, the defendant/applicant had in
all instances, not shown it readiness to be bound by an amicable resolution of
the dispute. The plaintiffs attached Exhibit ‘1’ series to their affidavit in
opposition to show the efforts they had made in a bid to have their grievances
addressed.<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">The Court has considered the
affidavits of both parties and their attached exhibits and has also considered
the submissions of both Counsel and the Court is of the opinion that the
plaintiffs/respondents have not demonstrated to this Court that they have gone
through all the four (4) steps laid down in Article 16 of their Collective Bargaining
Agreement with the 1st defendant. For example, there is nothing on
the face of the plaintiffs’ affidavit in opposition that shows that they and
the defendant have met before the Joint Negotiating Committee to resolve their differences
as provided for in Article 16 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and what
the outcome of the said meeting was.<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">In </main>