THE INDUSTRIAL & COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION ON BEHALF OF JOSEPH K. FIAVOR v. MANAGEMENT OF FAN MILK GHANA LTD & ANOR

DZAMEFE, JA

This is an appeal from the Industrial & Commercial Workers Union (ICU) on behalf of Mr. Joseph Fiavor a former staff of Fan Milk Ghana Limited, hereinafter referred to as the appellant against the decision of the panel of arbitrators appointed by the National labour Commission (NLC) to arbitrate between the appellant Joseph Fiavor and the Management of Fan Milk Ghana limited. The arbitration was about the summary dismissal of the appellant by the 1st respondents.

FACTS

The facts of the case as narrated by the appellant was that he was an employee of the 1st respondent company, Fan Milk Limited. He was also the Local Union Chairman of the Industrial and Commercial Workers Union (ICU). In that capacity he arranged for rice on credit for distribution to interested staff of the 1st respondents. The payment was to be made within 3 months. The rice was procured in May 2005 and payment to be completed at the end of July 2005. It was agreed the payment could be cash or ‘IOU’ payment.

It is the case of the appellant that some workers defaulted in payment for 4 months. In desperation the appellant had no choice but to resort to the ‘IOU’ system to pay the suppliers of the rice.

These are the only facts given by the appellant in his submission. However from the record of appeal, the appellant instructed one Mr. Solomon Mensah to deduct monies from ‘IOU’s from those who were in default of payment. The record of appeal states when it was done, he realized the monies deducted was inadequate to pay for the rice. He therefore ordered Solomon Mensah to refund the monies deducted back to the employees affected by the exercise. Unknown to the appellant, Solomon Mensah failed to comply with his instruction and finally a report by some of the affected employees got to Management.

Management issued a query exhibit ‘A’ to the appellant on 16th February, 2006 which he answered on 19th February 2006 explaining what happened and also rendering an apology to the affected workers exhibit ‘B’. Management dissatisfied with his answers to the query summarily dismissed the appellant on 13th April 2006. The General Secretary of the ICU on 5th October 2006 wrote a protest letter to the Managing Director of the 1st respondent company copied to the Human Resource Manager requesting the reinstatement of the appellant – exhibit ‘D’.

The respondent company in response to exhibit ‘D’ said they would be happy if the matter is referred to “an independent and impartial body such