OVERSEAS BREWERIES LTD v. AGAH

This is an appeal against the decision and judgment of the Circuit Court, Accra, delivered on 12 March 1965. The defendants-appellants were in that court sued by the plaintiff-respondent [p.194] for wrongful dismissal and the court gave judgment in favour of the respondent on the ground that the summary dismissal by the appellants of the respondent was wrongful and contrary to exhibit 3 which was a collective agreement entered into between the appellants and the appropriate negotiating body for and on behalf of the respondent and incorporated in the respondent's terms of employment.

Both on the pleadings and on the basis of the evidence adduced in the court below, there was no disagreement that under the terms of the collective agreement entered into between the appellant company and the Industrial, Commercial and General Workers Union pursuant to section 17 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1958 (No.56 of 1958), the appellant company was entitled under circumstances specified in article IV (1) of the aforesaid collective agreement to exercise the powers of summary dismissal of employees who were members of that union and also that the respondent was a member of the union. There was further no disagreement that under the gratuity scheme of the appellant company, employees were entitled to gratuity under normal circumstances but that they forfeited the same if their employment was terminated by reason of theft or misconduct and that the respondent was aware of this.

There was further no disagreement that the appellant company had issued free of charge "goggles" for use as protection to the eye to all employees engaged in taking bottles of beer from the conveyor belt in the bottling plant of the factory for packing into crates.

The respondent in his evidence before the circuit court admitted that he was given goggles for use when removing bottles from the conveyor belt for package into crates; he admitted knowledge that the removal of the goggles from the eye was strictly forbidden when bottles were passing down on the conveyor belt; he further admitted that all employees including himself were warned that if they took off the goggles while actually working on the bottles disciplinary action would be taken against them. He admitted knowledge that it was dangerous to remove the goggles from the eye in such circumstances. His case was that he never took off the goggles while actually working, he usually did so only after the bottles had been packed and