RICHARD OWUSU ACHIAW VS UPTOUCH CONSULT LTD & ANOR

Per his amended writ of summons filed on 10th October, 2019, the plaintiff has sued the defendants jointly and severally for damages for the wrongful termination of his employment contract.

The plaintiff's case is that the 1st defendant recruited him to work for the 2nd defendant on the Takoradi-Tema Interconnection Project(TTIP) as the Coating Painting Quality Control Supervisor for a period of twelve(12)months.

According to him, the defendants have terminated his employment contract based on the actions of one Fabio Italiano, an employee of Desimone Ltd. Recounting the incident leading to the termination of his contract, the plaintiff averred that on 5th June, 2018, Fabio Italiano walked out of his office, shouted and rained insults on him and his colleagues at work and behaved aggressively towards them.

He reacted by walking away from the said Fabio Italiano. As was expected of the defendants, they denied the plaintiff’s claims. The 1st defendant stated that on 6th June, 2018, she received a report of misconduct on the plaintiff’s part.

Having investigated the allegation, it was established that the plaintiff had misconducted himself by exhibiting gross insubordination in the course of his employment towards the project manager, Fabio Italiano. By virtue of this, she terminated the plaintiff’s employment in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment contract.

The 2nd defendant has denied any relationship, employment or otherwise, between her and the plaintiff.

Her case is that the 1st defendant was an independent contractor who supplied her with labour services, including the plaintiff.

At all material times, the plaintiff remained an employee of the 1st defendant.

According to her, for reasons including the need to reinforce transparency and confidence in her dealings with the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant agreed with her to negotiate the plaintiff’s salary with him.

However, the ultimate decision on any negotiated amount rested with the 1st defendant as the plaintiff’s employer.

She further stated that due to several acts of misconduct on the plaintiff’s part, and the general apathy he displayed in his work, which was generally unsatisfactory, she made reports to the 1st defendant as the plaintiff’s employer.

She also discussed with the 1st defendant, who confirmed that the plaintiff’s employment was not unfairly terminated.

The plaintiff had been paid his accrued benefits upon the termination of his employment.

The fol