J. K. AGYARBENG & 62 ORS v. SG/SSB BANK LTD (NOW SOCIETE GENERALE GHANA
2015
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- AKUFFO (MS.), JSC (PRESIDING)
- GBADEGBE JSC
- AKOTO BAMFO (MRS) JSC
- BENIN JSC
- AKAMBA JSC
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Civil Procedure
2015
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involved the termination of various employees of a bank as part of a re-organization effort that led to staff downsizing. The plaintiffs, affected employees, claimed that their terminations required negotiated severance packages under labor laws, which were not correctly provided. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting them damages. The Supreme Court overturned these rulings, stating that the terminations were lawful and that the particular labor decrees cited by the plaintiffs did not apply to redundancy situations. No evidence was found to support that the negotiated severance was a requirement either by statute or by recognized corporate practice.
BENIN, JSC: -
The plaintiffs/respondents/respondents, hereafter called the respondents, were
employees of the defendant/appellant/appellant bank, hereafter called the
appellant. The relationship of employer-employees was terminated when the
appellant decided to embark upon a re-organisation exercise which entailed the
down-sizing of its staff. To this end the appellant issued a notice dated 13
December 2001, tendered in evidence as Exhibit A addressed to the Chairman of
the Local Union and copied to the Chairman of the Senior Staff Association(SSA).
For its full force and effect, we quote exhibit A here:
‘BANK RE-ORGANISATION
Owing to full scale implementation of the Flexcube programme and other
Transformation initiatives it has now become necessary for the bank to re-organise
its core structure for competitive advantage.
The need therefore has arisen for the rightsizing of staff by 28th February 2002.
In line with the requirements of our Collective Bargaining Agreement (Item 11.3
under redundancy) we have to schedule a meeting between the Local Union and
Management Representatives to negotiate on the benefits package that will be paid
to the affected staff.
In this regard we are proposing that the Standing Joint Negotiation Committee
should meet on the 21 December 2001 for the above purpose’.
It is apparent that the meeting could not convene on 21 December 2001; there is
nothing on the record to indicate that the meeting was held. What is undisputed is
that the appellant had decided to embark upon a re-organisation exercise which
necessitated a reduction in staff hence the decision to invoke the redundancy
provision under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). It is to be noted from
the onset that the CBA was applicable to only the junior staff, otherwise known as
the unionized staff. Exhibit A gave no indication as to which members of staff
were to be affected by the exercise. Thus subsequent to exhibit A the appellant
issued a circular, exhibit B, on 11 January 2002 addressed to all members of staff
in which it reiterated the subject-matter of re-organisation and redundancy. It
stated further that:
‘In order to ensure a smooth and uninterrupted staff rationalization exercise,
members of staff who wish to be considered for separation benefits packages are
invited to forward their letters of intent to Head, Human Resources Management
Department by 25th January 2002.
The separation is planned to be in two phases. The