JONATHAN AGO ADJEI & OTHERS v. GCB BANK LIMITED
2019
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- HONYENUGA, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- SOWAH, J.A.
- POKU-ACHEAMPONG, J.A
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Civil Procedure
2019
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This appeal concerns three former temporary employees of Ghana Commercial Bank Ltd (GCB)—Jonathan Adjei Ago, Aliyu‑Abu, and Michael Okpoti Charway—who served from September 2009 to May 2014, after initial National Service placements with GHIPSS of the Bank of Ghana and GCB. In May 2014, The Capital Group Limited (TCGL), an agency engaged by GCB, offered them six‑month contracts assigning them back to GCB; all three resigned effective 2 June 2014 and sued. The High Court (Labour Court 1) dismissed their claims. The Court of Appeal, per Poku‑Acheampong JA, held that under Section 75(1) of the Labour Act temporary workers must be treated as permanent after six months, rejected “core banking” training as a prerequisite, and found the resignations were constructive dismissals under Section 63(3). SOWAH JA concurred, rejecting Ground 4. The Court awarded each eight months’ salary plus interest.
JUDGMENT
POKU-ACHEAMPONG, J.A.
This is an appeal in respect of a Labour Suit brought on behalf of three young men who used to work with the Respondent Bank, Ghana Commercial Bank Ltd.
On 23rd May, 2016 the High Court (Labour Court 1) delivered its judgment and dismissed all the claims of the Plaintiffs/Appellants.
Aggrieved and highly dissatisfied with the judgment the Plaintiffs /Appellants on 1st August 2017 filed a Notice of Appeal on the following grounds:
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
a. That the Judge erred in Law when she failed to hold that Plaintiffs having attained the status of temporary workers they by law attained the status of permanent workers and ought to have been treated as permanent workers.
b. That the Judge erred in Law when she concluded that Plaintiffs have not been trained in core banking and as such were not qualified for employment as permanent workers.
c. The Judge erred grievously in Law when she held that Plaintiffs did not accept the transfers issued by the Defendant but wrongly concluded that there was no transfer at all and therefore misdirected herself on the issue.
d. That the Judge erred in Law when she failed to consider the issues set down for consideration of the court but rather dealt with issues that were not before her.
No additional grounds of appeal were filed. The Plaintiffs/Appellants will be simply referred to as “the Appellants” and the Defendant/Respondent as “the Respondent”.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The brief facts of the case which are not in dispute are as follows:
The 1st and 3rd Appellants were assigned by the National Service Secretariat to do their mandatory National Service with the Ghana Inter Bank Payment and Settlement Systems (GHIPSS) of the Bank of Ghana from November 2008 whilst the 2nd Appellant was assigned directly to the Respondent to do his National Service at the same period. The 1st and 3rdAppellants were reposted to the Respondent on completion of the National Service assignment. The three Appellants subsequently worked for the Respondent upon completing their National Service from September 2009 to May 2014 (a period of about 5 years).
It is the case of the Appellants that for the period of September 2009 to May 2014, the Respondent engaged them as temporary employees. In May 2014 the Appellants received letters from a firm called The Capital Group Limited (TCGL) an employment agency engaged by the Respondent. The import of the letters was that they had been offered Contract Appointment for