Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
J U D G M E N T
ANTHONY OPPONG, JA:
For the sake of brevity, I will refer to the parties in this appeal the same way they
were nomenclatured at the trial high court. That is the plaintiffs/respondents/1st to
59th plaintiff’s cross-appellants will be referred to as plaintiffs; 1st defendant/
appellant/respondent will be referred to as 1st defendant and 2nd defendant/
respondent/respondent will be referred to as 2nd defendant.
The 1st defendant, a private employment agency registered and carrying on business
in Ghana and 2nd defendants, an offshore oil and gas drilling company registered in
Ghana and operating its business of offshore oil and gas drilling by way of
exploration, entered into an agreement in the year 2013 by which the 1st defendant
supplied skilled and technical workers like engineers, roughnecks, lead roughnecks,
painters, welders etc. to work on the 2nd defendant’s oil rig, the West Leo in Ghana’s
offshore oil and gas exploration and or extraction area.
According to the terms of the employment, the skilled labour workers supplied by
1st defendant to work on the 2nd defendant’s oil rig, were to remain the employees of
the 1st defendant and as such the 1st defendant was to be paid a determined amount
of money for the services rendered by its employees by the 2nd defendant and the 1st
defendant in turn would pay its employees. As a maNer of fact, the 2nd defendant
did not have control of the 1st defendant’s employees except the right to inspect the
work done by them so as to ensure that they have satisfied the standard of work in
accordance with the tenets of the agreement. A copy of the said agreement was
tendered in evidence as Exhibit 1 or SD1.
This 2013 agreement was extended or renewed to cover 2014 and 2015. In 2016,
however, it was replaced by a new agreement which was also tendered in evidence
as Exhibit 2 or SD2.
The plaintiffs, 59 of them, except the 60th, were the employees of 1st defendant who
were engaged to work on the oil rig, West Leo of 2nd defendant. These plaintiffs were
employed by the 1st defendant at various points in time and were given contracts of
employment which were the “Terms and Conditions of Engagement” by the 1st
defendant. These contracts of engagement were renewed on a yearly basis.
The plaintiffs, with the exception of the 39th were Fixed Term Contract Staff (FTCS)
of 1st defendant and they unionized by the General Transport, Petroleum and
Chemical Workers Union in 2009. Howeve