FREDRICK ABBAN & ORS VS TAKORADI FLOUR MILLS COMPANY LIMITED

MAJORITY OPINION

AMADU JSC: -

INTRODUCTION:

(1) The ascription of a “worker” or “employee” at the workplace or in an employment respectively, carries with it various legal incidents.

The employed is placed in a status of benefit in terms of being entitled to be remunerated for work done or enjoy such entitlements that come with the contract of employment.

Statutorily also, the employer is mandated to contribute to the social security benefits of the employee to the appropriate state agency.

Conversely, the worker or employee may be liable for any breach of the contract of employment.

Correspondingly, the employer is advantaged with the use of the employee for purposes of the employment as defined per the contract of employment.

However, the employer could be vicariously liable for any negligence committed by the worker/employee in the course of his/her employment.

In all of these situations, the law is will not necessarily infer the relationship merely upon allegations, but rather on clearly defined circumstances.

1. My Lords, in this appeal, we are confronted with a situation, where the parties are disputing the status of the Plaintiffs/Appellants/Respondents (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiffs”) in the Defendant/Respondent/ Appellant’s (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendant”) company.

That is to say, whether Plaintiffs are permanent workers of the Defendant or independent contractors? Whiles Plaintiffs claim to be permanent employees of Defendant, and thus, entitled to SSNIT contributions from Defendant, Defendant argues contra, that the Plaintiffs are not their employees.

Thus, closely observed, the key issue that arises from this contest is, whether the Plaintiffs are first and foremost, workers/employees of the Defendant company.

If they are, then, are they casual employees or permanent employees? A determination of the later distinction may positively implicate the incidents associated with such employment status.

BACKGROUND AND FACTS(3) On the 10 th of March 2014, Plaintiffs invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court, Sekondi, per a writ of summons for reliefs as endorsed on the said writ against the Defendants.

The original writ, was subsequently amended on the 3rd day of December 2015. In the amended writ of summons, the Plaintiffs claimed the following reliefs against the Defendant: “(a) An order that the Plaintiffs and the loaders of Takoradi Flour Mills Co.

Ltd. are permanent employees of the Defendant and not casual