OPARE YEBOAH & ORS v. BARCLAYS BANK OF GHANA LTD
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- E. K. Ayebi, JA (Presiding)
- Dennis Adjei, JA
- S. G. Suurbaareh, JA
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Civil Procedure
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves the dismissal of plaintiffs, who were union executives at the defendant bank, for allegedly leading an illegal strike. Their initial suit and subsequent appeals were dismissed by the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court. A follow-up suit in 2013 with similar claims was also dismissed, based on the principles of estoppel per rem judicatam and piecemeal litigation. The courts determined the plaintiffs were lawfully dismissed and upheld the rulings against them, emphasizing the necessity for finality in litigation and compliance with procedural rules.
AYEBI, JA
1. The remote cause of this suit can be traced to the events of 14th November, 2007. The plaintiffs/appellants (hereinafter called plaintiffs) were local union executives of the Industrial and Commercial Workers Union of the staff of the defendant/respondent (hereinafter called defendant). On 14th November 2017, the plaintiffs/appellants were alleged to have declared, instigated, incited, led or supported others to embark on an illegal strike in contravention of the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651) and the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)between the defendant and its employees.
For the alleged contravention, the defendant on 11th January 2008, served each of the plaintiffs notice of its intention to dismiss them.
Accordingly, pursuant to Article 17 of the CBA, the defendant summarily dismissed each of the plaintiffs on 26th February, 2008. 2. 2. The plaintiffs denied the charges leveled against them by the defendant.
It was the case of the plaintiffs that their dismissal was a victimization for giving support and or participating in a suit against the defendant at the High Court.
Therefore in Suit No. 36/2008, the plaintiffs led by their mother union, the Industrial and Commercial Workers Union (ICU) sued the defendant for: (a) A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 15 and 17 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between 9th plaintiff union and the defendant bank, the letters issued to 1st to 8th plaintiffs on 11th January 2008 dated the same date, by the defendant bank purportedly under Article 17 of the CBA purportedly summarily dismissing 1st to 8th plaintiffs from their employment with defendant bank are illegal as being in contravention of the said Articles 15 and 17 of the CBA and the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651) and are null and void and consequently an order quashing the said letters.
b) A declaration that defendant’s action is arbitrary, capricious and a victimization of the 1st to 8th plaintiffs as trade union leaders and further that the defendant’s conduct is unconstitutional and illegal as being in contravention of Articles 23 and section 63 of the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651).
c) Damages for breach of provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
d) A perpetual injunction restraining the defendant bank from carrying out any acts of victimization of the 1st to 8th plaintiffs duties and performance of their functions as such trade union leaders or as employees of defendant bank.
3. After a full