barclays bank gh. ltd. v. ivan yelipoie

MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A.: On 29-6-2009, the National Labour Commission upheld the Petition of the Petitioner/Respondent when it ruled that; “In the result, the Respondent’s decision to demote and reduce the earnings of the Petitioner is flawed.

The petition for that matter is upheld.

Accordingly, the Respondent is ordered to restore the Petitioner to his original status of supervisor grade two or its equivalent.

In addition to this, the Respondent is ordered to meet the following:

a. Difference in Petitioner’s salary from January 2002 to date; and b. Any other accrued benefits from January 2002 to date.

The Respondent is hereby ordered to comply with this decision not later than fourteen [14] days from the date of receipt of this decision”. Dissatisfied with the decision, the Respondent appealed to this court on the following grounds; 1. The decision is against the weight of the evidence.

2. The National Labour Commission had no jurisdiction to have determined the petition.

3. Additional or other grounds to be filed upon receipt of the record of proceedings.

The relief sought from this court is that the decision be wholly set aside.

On 1-12-2011, the Respondent filed Amended Notice of Appeal pursuant to the Order of this Court dated 23-11-2011.

They are as follows; a. The decision is against the weight of evidence.

b. The National Labour Commission had no jurisdiction to have determined the petition.

c. Additional or other grounds to be filed upon receipt of the record of proceedings.

d. The National Labour Commission erred in law by the retrospective application of the Labour Act 2003, to the subject matter herein, which arose in 2001 and contrary to Article 107 [b] of the 1992 Constitution.

Before dealing with the arguments canvassed in support or against this appeal, I will give a brief background of this case.

Following unsatisfactory performance of the petitioner/respondent over a period of one year after an audit assessment of his performance in the appellant Bank, which assessment was communicated to him, the Bank wrote to the petitioner/respondent demoting him and reducing his remuneration on 3-12- 2001.

Before then the Bank has written a final warning letter to the petitioner complaining of his poor performance.

Subsequent to this a disciplinary inquiry was conducted against him resulting in the petitioner’s demotion and reduction in remuneration.

His appeal against the demotion and reduction in remuneration failed.

Almost five