MRS. JANET DOE v. SOCIAL SECURITY AND NATIONAL INSURANCE TRUST & ANOTHER
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- OWUSU, J. A (PRESIDING)
- ACQUAYE, J.A.
- TORKORNOO, J. A
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Contract Law
- Equity
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff/appellant, who was made redundant following an organizational restructuring, contended that her redundancy package was not properly negotiated as required by law. The High Court ruled in favor of the 1st respondent on its counterclaims but made inconsistent orders. The appellant appealed, but the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's orders were against the weight of the evidence. The court emphasized the importance of contractual principles in resolving employment disputes.
J U D G M E N T
TORKORNOO, J. A:
The plaintiff/appellant in this suit was employed for over 20 years at the Trust Hospital as an employee of SSNIT, the 1st defendant/Respondent. In the High Court, her case was that SSNIT entered into an organizational restructuring exercise which separated the Trust Hospital from the organization. The Trust Hospital was taken over by the 2nd defendant/respondent, which had been incorporated as a separate legal entity. This exercise made her redundant along with other staff effective 31st December 2012.
She argued that under Section 65 of the Labor Act 2003 (Act 651), SSNIT, was required by law to negotiate a redundancy package with her but they failed to do so. It reads -
Section 65 – Redundancy
a. severance of the legal relationship of worker and employer as it existed immediately before the close down, arrangement or amalgamation; and
b. as a result of and in addition to the severance that worker becomes unemployed or suffers any diminution in the terms and conditions of employment,
the worker is entitled to be paid by the undertaking at which that worker was immediately employed prior to the close down, arrangement or amalgamation, compensation, in this section referred to as ‘redundancy pay’
4. The amount of redundancy pay and the terms and conditions of payment are matters which are subject to negotiation between the employer or a representative of the employer on the one hand and the worker or the trade union concerned on the other.
Her complaint is that, without negotiation, SSNIT paid her a compulsory exit package which comprised 3 months’ salary and salaries for the remaining twenty two months that she was to work prior to retirement. They paid her the money with a direction to complete and submit a handing over certificate and dis-engagement form and hand over any property of SSNIT in her possession to the Trust Hospital administrator before a specified date.
She wrote through her lawyers to protest this ‘unilaterally and arbitrarily determined exit package’. She said that it did not take into consideration pension contributions for the remaining 22 months that she would have been in employment until her retirement, the possibility of salary increases in these 22 months, and all the benefits that come along with being in active e