GAKPLADZI FRANCIS _ ORS. v. SPINTEX LIMITED
2004
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- OMARI SASU, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- ANIM, J.A.
- KUSI-APPOUH (MRS), J
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Constitutional Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
2004
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
On appeal from the High Court, Accra, the Court of Appeal (per Anim J.A.) reviewed the dismissal of former employees of Spintex Co. Ltd. and their claims for redundancy awards and SSNIT contributions. Management had unilaterally issued Exhibit B, a “work to cover” policy after power cuts, inviting workers unwilling to comply to seek redundancy, followed by piecemeal payments and Exhibit J suspending the redundancy exercise and suggesting resignation. Workers clocked in but demonstrated peacefully on the premises and were dismissed on 24 November 1995. The court found TEGLEU, the mother union, had not authorized any variation; the local union lacked capacity. Applying Act 299 and constitutional protections for peaceful demonstration, and finding no evidence of violent misconduct, the court held Exhibits B and J invalid, confirmed that termination was null and void, rejected the “illegal strike” ground, and dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s judgment.
JUDGMENT OF ANIM J.A.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court, Accra, presided over by His Lordship Justice Nana Gyamera Tawiah dated 20th July 2001. The Plaintiffs/Respondents hereinafter referred to as "the Plaintiffs) issued a Writ against the Defendants/Appellants (hereinafter referred to as "the Defendants") for the following reliefs, namely:—
(a) An order compelling Defendants to pay to Plaintiffs their redundancy awards with interest thereon at the prevailing bank rate from 14th November 1995 to date of final payment and any other benefits or entitlements due to them.
(b) An order compelling Defendants to pay to SSNIT the Social Security contributions deducted from Plaintiffs.
(c) Any other relief or reliefs this Honourable Court may deem fit.
On 19th February 1997, Summons for Directives was taken: issues contained in the Plaintiffs Summons for Directions filed on 21st January 1997 as well as the additional issues filed by the Defendants on 13th February 1997 were set down for trial. The suit was thus adjourned to 13th March, 1997 for hearing.
On 13th March 1997 hearing of the suit did not take place. The court adjourned the case to 27th May 1997 for hearing and continuation on 26th May and 29th May 1997. On 29th May 1997 the Plaintiffs opened their case and led evidence. After a series of hearing from both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, judgment was delivered on 20th July 2001. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with this judgment the Defendants have appealed to this court. In the Notice of Appeal filed on 7th August 2001, three main grounds of Appeal set out.
Ground (a) was formulated as follows:—
"The Court erred in Law when it failed to hold that the Plaintiff's dismissal was as a result of illegal strike action they embarked upon."
In arguing this ground Learned Counsel for the Defendants submitted that an illegal strike is an unauthorised strike or strike not sanctioned by those with authority to declare it. According to counsel the judgment accepts the Plaintiffs’ contention and evidence that the working relationship between the workers and the Defendant Company is governed or regulated by a Collective Agreement i.e. exhibit "A". This document was signed by the workers’ mother union i.e. TEGLEU and the Defendant company. Thus any variation of the Agreement has to be done by both parties. Counsel submitted that the authority or body to declare a strike or demonstration by the workers for redress is TEGLEU. Learned Counse