Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
EMMANUEL ANKAMAH J. A.
INTRODUCTION
This is an appeal against the ruling of the National Labour Commission dated 29th January 2020. For ease of reference, in this opinion, the Complainants/Appellants shall be referred to collectively as “the Appellants” and the Respondent/Respondent simply as“the Respondent”. BACKGROUND The Appellants were previously in the employment of the Respondent as security personnel.
The Respondent is a company that provides aviation support services in Ghana.
The 1st Appellant was employed on 1st August 2006. From the Record of Appeal, it is not provided when the 2nd Appellant was employed by the Respondent but according to its mother union UNICOF he was a senior officer just like the 1st Appellant.
During the course of their employment, a complaint of verbal abuse was lodged against the Appellants by a colleague staff of the Respondent.
A Disciplinary Commiꢀee was set up by the Respondent to investigate the complaint.
At the hearing of the Disciplinary Commiꢀee, the Appellants objected to the presence of all witnesses at the hearing when the Complainant testified and before those witnesses testified.
Nonetheless, the Disciplinary Commiꢀee overruled these objections.
The Disciplinary Commiꢀee concluded its mandate and submiꢀed its report to the Management of the Respondent.
Management relied on the report and terminated the Appellants’ employment on 20th September 2013. The Appellants petitioned the Labour Commission on grounds of unfair termination due to the procedural flaw in the Disciplinary Commiꢀee’s hearings and prayed for an order of reinstatement.
The Labour Commission evaluated the case of the Appellants and the Respondents and made the following findings: 1. The Disciplinary Commiꢀee’s proceedings were flawed and not conducted in a fair manner because: a. The decision by the Disciplinary Commiꢀee to overrule the objection raised by the Appellants concerning the presence of the complainant’s witnesses was erroneous.
b. The Appellants were summoned to answer a case of verbal abuse lodged by the complainant (the staff of the Respondent) however, the Appellants were found liable for different offences which were not levelled against them.
c. The Respondent through its Managing Director on 16th May, 2013 wrote to Appellants and undertook to afford them an opportunity to be heard and state their case.
This was not done by the Managing Director without any reason.
2. The procedure for termination was in breach of the rules