SAMUEL BONNEY & OTHERS v. GHANA PORTS AND HARBOURS AUTHORITY

OWUSU (MS) JSC.

The appellants herein are former employees of the Respondent, Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority.

By their employment, they were classified as casual or non-permanent workers.

In September 2002, the Respondent Authority carried out a re-organisation exercise in which both permanent and casual or non-permanent employees were declared redundant and therefore laid off.

The permanent employees were paid severance packages as provided in the collective Bargaining Agreement but the casual/non-permanent were paid what they describe as “mere pittances” because the Respondent contended that they were not entitled to severance packages because the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement in respect of severance package did not apply to them as casual/non-permanent employees. The Respondent termed what was given to the casuals as “golden handshake.”

Some of the casual employees instituted an action against the Respondent in the case of AGBESI and Others VRS GHANA PORTS & HARBOURS AUTHORITY which ended up in the Supreme Court reported in [2007-2008] SCGLR 469.

The case of the plaintiffs in that action was that having worked for the Respondent as non-permanent employees for periods ranging from a year to over ten years, doing the same work as the permanent employees and paid leave allowances, bonuses, social security deductions and assigned staff numbers like permanent employees under the collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), they were entitled to be treated as permanent employees and paid the same severance packages as awarded the permanent employees.

The Respondent/Defendant therein contended that the plaintiffs in that action were its employees whose employment was governed by article 19 (2) (i) and (ii) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and went on to assert that the Maritime and Dockworkers Union (MDU) (negotiated and agreed with the Defendant for a severance package for all non-permanent employees.

The Defendant maintained, it complied with the provisions of the CBA relating to compensation payable to the non-permanent employees upon the severance of their relationship with the plaintiffs. It therefore denied the plaintiffs’ claim.

At the end of the trial, Judgment was entered in favour of the plaintiffs. Dissatisfied, the Defendant Authority appealed to the Court of Appeal which court set aside the Judgment of the High Court by a majority of 2 to 1 decision.

Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal d