Try asking the following...
J U D G M E N T
ANSAH, J.S.C.:
This is an appeal against the majority judgment of the Court of Appeal allowing the appeal against the judgment of the High Court, Tema.
The facts that culminated in this appeal were that the plaintiffs, former employees of the defendant authority, sued out a writ of summons claiming:
“Damages for the breach of the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the parties.
An award of compensation by the Court to the plaintiffs to be paid by the defendant for its illegal/unlawful conduct in keeping the plaintiffs as casual workers, and breaching plaintiff’s economic rights under the 1992 Constitution and also discriminating against the plaintiffs contrary to the provisions of the 1992 Constitution.
An order that the same compensation packages given to various categories of permanent employees as employees as compensation for the severance of employment resulting from the same re-organization of the defendant be made applicable to the plaintiffs, Or, in the alternative, an order that the defendant negotiates with the plaintiffs the appropriate compensation payable to the plaintiffs.
Interest on all sums found due and owing from the defendant to the plaintiffs at the Commercial Bank rate from 1st October 2002 to date of judgment.
Costs.”
The relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant was governed by various Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA) negotiated between the Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority (GPHA) and the Maritime and Dockworkers Union (MDU) of the TUC, (exhibit B in the proceedings),the various laws relating to employer-employee relationships and the general laws of the land. The provisions in Exhibit B became the terms of a contract of employment between the plaintiffs and the defendant.
The case of the plaintiffs was that in or about September 2002, the defendant authority underwent a reorganization exercise in the course of which the plaintiffs’ employment was terminated. The plaintiffs asserted in support of their claims, they had worked for the defendant as non-permanent employees (otherwise called casual workers), for periods ranging from a year to over ten years, and had been assigned the same duties and work as were assigned to those called permanent employees, but the defendant discriminated against the plaintiffs for even though, they were paid leave allowances, bonuses, their Social Security deductions, and assigned staff numbers just like permanent workers, they were den