MARITIME AND DOCKWORKERS' UNION OF THE TRADES UNION CONGRESS OF GHANA v. STATE SHIPPING CORPORATION (BLACK STAR LINE)

JUDGMENT OF OSEI-HWERE J.

Consequent upon an industrial dispute which erupted between the Maritime and Dockworkers' Union of the T.U.C. (Black Star Line branch) and the management of the State Shipping Corporation (Black Star Line,) the Commissioner for Labour and Social Welfare appointed Dr. Joe K. Ansere as the sole arbitrator. His terms of reference were, "to inquire into whether or not the workers who occupy houses owned by the Black Star Line should be paid 20 per cent rent allowance." After he had concluded the arbitral proceedings the arbitrator made his awards in the following terms:

"I therefore award that the payment of the 20 per cent rent allowance to workers while occupying corporation houses should cease with effect from 30 April 1979...Although I feel the workers occupying Black Star Line houses should not receive the 20 per cent rent allowance, I am inclined to agree that the union has a case in demanding that the workers who had been residing in the corporation's houses be allowed to own them. I therefore award further that management take immediate steps to hand over all the houses to the workers, and this to take effect from 1 May 1979. The implication of this award is that the workers who have now become owners of the houses will be entitled to receive the 20 per cent allowance."

These awards were duly confirmed by the Commissioner for Labour and Social Welfare on 27 July 1979 and published in the Commercial and Industrial Bulletin No. 26 on Friday, 3 August 1979. Pursuant to this award the board of directors of the defendant-corporation decided that the arbitration award should be implemented and they notified the plaintiffs accordingly by their circular letter. The plaintiffs complain that, in spite of the said arbitration award and the decision of the board of directors, the management of the defendant-corporation have failed and refused and continue to refuse to implement the said award and decision. The plaintiffs contended that the refusal of the defendant-corporation to implement the said award and decision was unlawful and wrongful and that unless they were otherwise ordered and compelled to do so by a court's order the defendant-corporation would never implement the said award and decision. They have, therefore, sued for:

[p.677]

"An order that the defendant-corporation in compliance with the said arbitration award and the said decision should transfer the houses whose numbers are given in exhibit A (attached to the stat