Supermaritime Ghana Limited positioned in Tema Community 1 beneath the umbrella physique of Maritime and Dockworkers Union (MDU) of the Ghana Trades Union Congress (GTUC) has been dragged to an Accra High Court by a employee of the company, Nana Kofi Anaafi.
This follows what Nana Kofi Anaafi, who’s the plaintiff within the case with go well with no: 11/006/2022 between him and Supermaritime Ghana Ltd., the defendant, has described because the wrongly and unlawfully termination of his appointment by the company.
The plaintiff/applicant contends that to the most effective of his information, in any respect materials instances that the MDU has been attempting to resolve the issues in dispute, at no level has the problem of compensation or advantages occasioned by the wrongful termination of his employment come up for discussions.
He added that he has no information of any cost recommendation, and has not accepted or agreed to settle for any cheque/cost, from the defendant as full and last cost of advantages ensuing from the defendant’s wrongful termination of his employment.
In an affidavit in assist of the appliance filed on behalf of the plaintiff by the Paintsil Paintsil & CO., Goshen Chambers, a authorized agency at Adabraka in Accra, the plaintiff is praying the court to direct the defendant to pay to him will increase in salaries and allowances through the interval of his interdiction and employment termination.
It requested the court to order the defendant to pay the tier 1, tier 2, and tier 3 pension contribution through the interval of the interdiction and employment termination; normal damages for breach; and authorized value.
The affidavit said that although the defendant subsequently entered look to the motion on 25 April, 2022, it has since not delivered its defence to date.
“I am advised that the Plaintiff/Applicant has become entitled to interlocutory judgment in default of defence for the reliefs indorsed in the Writ of Summons by reason of the said default,” it famous.
However, an announcement of defence by the defendant expressly denied every materials assertion of truth contained within the plaintiff’s assertion of declare.
The defendant denied that the plaintiff was dismissed however careworn that his appointment was terminated after a committee confirmed his gross insubordination.
The defendant additionally denied the assertion that the plaintiff was required to intercede in issues affecting the wellbeing of trade and labour throughout regular working hours.
“The defendant avers that the plaintiff misconducts himself and was disrespectful towards the Managing Director on several occasions and the Maritime and Dock Workers Union (MDU) per their rules always sought written permission for employees who were engaged in Union activities for every programme,” it mentioned.
According to the defence assertion, the defendant refuted the averments that the plaintiff didn’t have such mandate throughout his employment with the company and wanted permission always to participate in union actions.
The defendant argued that the mentioned demonstration was towards authorities coverage by some people within the transport trade.
The defendant mentioned it was towards the curiosity of the defendant for the plaintiff to be engaged in such actions with out being granted the requisite permission from the suitable quarters.
The defendant additional said that the plaintiff’s conduct on that day was not acceptable and was geared toward bringing the title of the defendant into disrepute, contemplating the truth that the system the plaintiff was aiding the demonstrators to battle towards was the identical one which had been used for the previous couple of years.
The defendant admitted paragraph 8 of the assertion of declare and averred that it took that motion as a result of the plaintiff refused to settle for a verbal instruction, adopted by a written instruction and subsequently left his put up to keep at dwelling.
According to the assertion, the plaintiff tried to use the MDU towards the defendant but it surely stood its floor.
The defendant maintained that it acted in the correct approach because the conduct of the plaintiff over time had gotten out of hand and was setting a foul instance for others to emulate.
Responding additional to the assertion of declare, the defendant mentioned the plaintiff persistently tried to use his mates on the MDU to affect the report of the disciplinary committee however was unsuccessful,”.
The defendant indicated that the company had at all times complied with labour legal guidelines however that the plaintiff a number of instances tried to use the union to disrupt regulation and order within the company’s premises.
The defendant additionally said that the plaintiff persistently proven disrespect to administration of the defendant.
“The defendant affirmed that the plaintiff sleeps within the workplace within the plain sight of employees and purchasers who’ve come to the workplace for one purpose or the opposite.
“The defendant denied that the plaintiff was dismissed however quite his appointment was terminated after the committee confirmed his gross insubordination.
Thus, the defendant said that the go well with was an abuse of the court course of and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any of the reliefs endorsed on the writ of summons and assertion of declare.