The plaintiff, until his dismissal from the defendant-company had been an employee of the defendant-company for about ten years. By a letter dated 20 January 1984 his appointment with the defendant-company was terminated with effect from 1 February 1984. He claims that his said dismissal was wrongful. He therefore claims for damages. Hence this action.
The defendant-company has resisted the plaintiff's claim. It contends that the plaintiff has been dismissed in accordance with the provisions of the existing collective agreement. The defendant-company subsequently amended its statement of defence. In paragraph 2 of the amended statement of defence it stated:
"2. Paragraph 4 of the statement of claim is denied. The defendants say that on 20 December 1984 the plaintiff was caught red-handed with two plastic containers filled with edible oil stolen from the defendant's premises at the time he was leaving the premises. The matter was investigated in accordance with the provisions of the existing collective agreement and the plaintiff was given an opportunity to defend himself. As a result of the investigations the plaintiff was dismissed."
The plaintiff denied this in his reply. At the close of pleadings, the main issue agreed upon and set down for trial was whether or not the plaintiff's dismissal was lawful.
The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant-company was a contractual one the terms of which are governed by the terms and conditions as contained in exhibit 1 (the agreement between the Mankoadze Fisheries Ltd and the Maritime and Dockworkers Union of the Trade Union Congress, Ghana). Both parties accept this as the situation.
[p.432]
Section 10(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1965 (Act 299) provides:
"(2) The provisions of a collective agreement under this Act concerning terms of employment and termination of employment, and personal obligations imposed on, and rights granted to an employee or employer shall be regarded as terms of a contract of employment between each employee to whom the provision applies and his employer."
The plaintiff was dismissed for stealing. It is necessary therefore to look at the collective agreement (exhibit 1) to see how under those circumstances, the plaintiff could be dismissed, if at all. Discipline and discharge of an employee is regulated by article 19 of the collective agreement. Sections 1(1) and 3(iii) of article 19 state:
"1.(1) Subject to the provisions of this agreement, the company ha
