GPHA loses suit against former workers
Gilbert Boyefio
An Accra High Court, Financial Division, yesterday ordered the Ghana Ports and Harbour Authority to pay millions of Ghana cedis in damages for breach of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, and also as salaries, bonuses, benefits and entitlement of 4,175 ex-casual workers.
The court awarded GH¢500 general damages for each of the 4,175 plaintiffs. The court further directed the GPHA to pay them their salaries, benefits, bonuses and entitlements from the time they ought to have been made permanent workers to the day their appointments were terminated.
This, the court said, should be calculated on the 155 working days of each plaintiff as enshrined in their Collective Bargaining Agreement. All monies are to be paid with interest from September 2002 at the Commercial Bank rate, the court insisted.
According to the ex-casual workers, they were employed by the authority as casual or non-permanent employees until September 2002 when the re-organisation led to their being laid off, without receiving any payment in lieu of notice, apart from some meager amounts described by the authority as golden handshake.
On January 18, 2006, the High Court in Tema, entered a similar judgment in favour of the dismissed workers, some of whom have worked for periods varying from one to 10 years, and ordered the GPHA to pay billions of cedis in damages for breach of the CBA, compensation, severance awards and costs.
The court had ordered that ¢5 million (GH¢500) should be paid to each of the ex-workers as damages for breach of the CBA, ¢10 million to each of them for each year of service after the expiration of 154 days of continuous work in the authority as compensation for illegal conduct in keeping them as casual workers, violation of their economic rights and discrimination against them, contrary to the 1992 Constitution.
It further ordered that severance awards comprising three months’ salary for each year of service, ¢3 million in lieu of rent, ¢2 million for medicals, two bags of rice, two gallons of oil, 2001 bonus for those who qualified and ¢1.5 million as conveyance fees should be given to the ex-workers.
The rest were five months’ salary as handshake, long service awards, interest on all sums due each of the ex-workers at current commercial bank rate from October 1, 2002 to the date of judgment and ¢10 million as costs.
However, part of this judgment was set aside by the Court of Appeal, by a 2-1 decision, in 2007. It was only five of the ex-workers whose entitlements were upheld by the Appeals Court.
The Appeals Court held that the action brought by the ex-workers did not qualify as a class action, since it lacked consistency in the list of the plaintiffs/respondents.
It said the five ex-workers who sued did so on their own behalf and capacity and that the rest of the plaintiffs were only joined after the statement of claim had been filed.The rest of the plaintiffs, the Appeals Court further noted, failed to discharge their evidential burden that the GPHA breached the CBA and found no justification in entering judgment in their favour. It was after this that the 4,175 ex-workers instituted the action at the Accra High Court.
An Accra High Court, Financial Division, yesterday ordered the Ghana Ports and Harbour Authority to pay millions of Ghana cedis in damages for breach of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, and also as salaries, bonuses, benefits and entitlement of 4,175 ex-casual workers.
The court awarded GH¢500 general damages for each of the 4,175 plaintiffs. The court further directed the GPHA to pay them their salaries, benefits, bonuses and entitlements from the time they ought to have been made permanent workers to the day their appointments were terminated.
This, the court said, should be calculated on the 155 working days of each plaintiff as enshrined in their Collective Bargaining Agreement. All monies are to be paid with interest from September 2002 at the Commercial Bank rate, the court insisted.
According to the ex-casual workers, they were employed by the authority as casual or non-permanent employees until September 2002 when the re-organisation led to their being laid off, without receiving any payment in lieu of notice, apart from some meager amounts described by the authority as golden handshake.
On January 18, 2006, the High Court in Tema, entered a similar judgment in favour of the dismissed workers, some of whom have worked for periods varying from one to 10 years, and ordered the GPHA to pay billions of cedis in damages for breach of the CBA, compensation, severance awards and costs.
The court had ordered that ¢5 million (GH¢500) should be paid to each of the ex-workers as damages for breach of the CBA, ¢10 million to each of them for each year of service after the expiration of 154 days of continuous work in the authority as compensation for illegal conduct in keeping them as casual workers, violation of their economic rights and discrimination against them, contrary to the 1992 Constitution.
It further ordered that severance awards comprising three months’ salary for each year of service, ¢3 million in lieu of rent, ¢2 million for medicals, two bags of rice, two gallons of oil, 2001 bonus for those who qualified and ¢1.5 million as conveyance fees should be given to the ex-workers.
The rest were five months’ salary as handshake, long service awards, interest on all sums due each of the ex-workers at current commercial bank rate from October 1, 2002 to the date of judgment and ¢10 million as costs.
However, part of this judgment was set aside by the Court of Appeal, by a 2-1 decision, in 2007. It was only five of the ex-workers whose entitlements were upheld by the Appeals Court.
The Appeals Court held that the action brought by the ex-workers did not qualify as a class action, since it lacked consistency in the list of the plaintiffs/respondents.
It said the five ex-workers who sued did so on their own behalf and capacity and that the rest of the plaintiffs were only joined after the statement of claim had been filed.The rest of the plaintiffs, the Appeals Court further noted, failed to discharge their evidential burden that the GPHA breached the CBA and found no justification in entering judgment in their favour. It was after this that the 4,175 ex-workers instituted the action at the Accra High Court.
Comments
Post a Comment