NATIONAL LABOUR COMMISSION v. SOUTHERN FRIED CHICKEN (SFC)

OFOE, J.A.

The brief sequence of events to this appeal can be stated as follows: The Food and Allied Workers Union of the Ghana Federation of Labour filed a petition with the National Labour Commission against the Southern Fried Chicken (SFC). Their petition alleged arbitrary dismissal, harassment and intimidation of its members by their employer, Southern Fried Chicken. The Commission sat on the case and based on its findings made orders which Southern Fried Chicken found unacceptable and therefore refused to comply with. As mandated by section 172 of the Labour Act 2003, Act 651 the Commission proceeded to the High Court for an order compelling the Respondent to comply with its orders. The High Court refused the order, hence this appeal. I will refer to the Commission as the appellant and Southern Fried Chicken as the respondent. Where it becomes necessary to refer to the Food and Allied Workers Union, I will refer to them as the petitioner.

What were the salient facts put before the appellant and what was its decision and what orders did it seek to enforce at the trial High Court? Before the appellant was a complaint from the petitioner dated the 24th August, 2005 alleging arbitrary dismissals, harassment and intimidation by the respondent. It was their case that the Managing Director, Bishop Dr. Paul Fynn had “adopted a strategy to frustrate trade union activities in the company by systematically and arbitrary dismissing workers. They had had cause to complain about the “entrenched management style” of the respondent to management but to no avail. Their complaint made mention, also of an incident involving a waitress whose dismissal after the intervention of the union was reduced to a warning but was later dismissed by the Managing Director because he thought the warning was not deterring enough. It was the position of the Union that the management style of the Managing Director was such that it might result in industrial unrest.

On receipt of the petition, the appellant invited the respondent company through its Managing Director to submit its comments to the complaints. The respondent submitted its comments accordingly, under the signature of the Company’s Managing Consultant, E.T. Ayi-Bonte. In respect of the intimidation and the harassment, the respondent denied. They admitted however that they were yet to put in place Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) but explained that until that was done the Company was using its rules and regulations and