NATIONAL LABOUR COMMISSION v. BARCLAYS BANK GHANA LTD.

MAJORITY DECISION

KULENDI JSC;

INTRODUCTION:

1.This is an appeal against the judgement of the Court of Appeal dated 21st November, 2019 by which the learned justices of the Court of Appeal set aside a ruling of the High Court dismissing an application by the National Labour Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) to enforce its labour decision against Barclays Bank Ghana Limited (hereinafter called the “the Bank”).

BACKGROUND:

2.The action was commenced under the Labour Act of 2003 (Act 651), when the National Labour Commission filed a motion for an order to compel Barclays Bank Ltd. to comply with its orders made on 20th August, 2013. The action was founded on section 19 of the Labour Act of 2003, (Act 651).

3.This suit entails two appeals, both against the judgement of the Court of Appeal dated 21st November, 2019 by which the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal set aside a ruling of the High Court which dismissed an application by the Commission to enforce its decision in favour of one Mrs. Laureen Lokko (hereinafter referred to as “the Complainant”) against the Bank.

4.Aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal, both the Bank and the Commission filed their notices of appeal on 13th February 2020 and 20th February 2020 respectively.

FACTS:

5.The facts of this case are that the Commission received a petition from the Complainant for redress in respect of an alleged unfair termination of her appointment with the Bank. In the said petition dated 6th November 2009, and which may be found at page 5 of the Record of Appeal, the Complainant stated that she was employed as head of Human Resources of the Bank in October, 2006 but due to circumstances following the exit of the Managing Director, she sought audience with the new Managing Director to discuss concerns relating to her employment whereby she informed the new Managing Director of her willingness to exit if the Managing Director ever felt the need for fresh pair of hands to head the Department. Subsequently, she was informed that the decision had been taken to end her employment with the Bank, and that she would be paid a month’s salary for each year served. By a letter dated 2nd March 2009, the Complainant rejected the Bank’s offer and made a counter offer demanding ten months salary for a mutual separation. Following the Counter-offer, the Bank made a subsequent counter offer of six months salary plus twenty percent (20%) discount on outstanding debts which she owed