Court stops labour unions from resuming strike
The Fast Track High Court has blocked 12 labour unions from engaging in any strike action in relation to the management of Tier 2 Pension funds, until the final determination of a suit on the issue.
Advertisement
“This order of interlocutory injunction is to take immediate effect and shall remain in force until the final determination of the instant suit or until further order by this court,” the presiding judge held.
“Finally, all the parties and stakeholders in this case are appealed to, encouraged and enjoined to exercise maximum restraint in order to ensure that the peace, stability and well-being of the nation, as well as the health and vigour of the current democratic dispensation, are fostered and assured in the interest of all and for the benefit of all citizens,” Mr Justice Saeed Kweku Djan, a Court of Appeal Judge, who sat with additional responsibility as a High Court judge ruled.
A date is yet to be fixed for hearing of the substantive case.
Background
The 12 labour unions are currently battling government at the Fast Track High Court over the management of their Tier 2 Pension funds.
They are: The Health Services Workers Union, Ghana Registered Nurses’ Association, Ghana Medical Association, Ghana Physician Assistants Association, Government and Hospital Pharmacists’ Association, Ghana Association of Certified Registered Anaesthetists, Ghana National Association of Teachers, Teachers and Educational Workers’ Union, National Association of Graduate Teachers, Civil and Local Government Staff Association, Judicial Service Staff Association and Coalition of Concerned Teachers.
They hit the streets after disagreements with the government over the management of the fund.
The demonstrations, which were held simultaneously in Accra and Kumasi, followed a strike declared by the unions that crippled the nation.
Other Trending Stories
The unions disagree with the government’s choice of a private trustee to manage the funds and want to be allowed to choose their own fund managers but the government holds a different view.
The government states that the future of Ghanaian workers fund should not be left in the hands of private institutions that are not in a position to offer the same guarantee of trust as government, with regard to the management of the pension, but labour has rejected that position and accused the government of unilaterally imposing the Pensions Alliance Trust on them.
Ex-parte motion
In the heat of the strike action by the said labour unions, the government in an ex-parte motion dated October 31 2014, prayed the court to stop the unions from continuing their strike, to which the court duly granted conditionally, and urged the plaintiff to serve the respondents accordingly.
In fulfilment of the court’s order, the government through the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice on November 10 2014, filed a motion on notice for interlocutory injunction seeking to restrain the labour unions from embarking on any strike action until the matter was resolved by the court.
Court’s decision
Ruling on the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction, the court said having the full and comprehensive view of the matter between the parties, granting the restraining order was the right thing to do.
Touching on the respondents’ argument that they had embarked on the strike action in consonance with their constitutional rights, the court described that position as “simplistic by far.”
It was emphatic that it was not expressing its view on whether or not the strike action by the respondents was lawful or not or constituted a breach of contract.
It said the balance of convenience lay in the granting of the injunction and not refusing it, and reminded the respondents that they could have used other means spelt out in the Labour Act to compel the government to comply with its statutory duties as stipulated in the Pensions Act.
Describing the duties of majority of the respondents as the “soul” of the nation, the court held that withdrawal of their services had the potential of bringing the country on its knees.
Essential services
Reminding the healthcare professionals among the respondents of the crucial role they played on the labour front, the court held that persons who needed emergency medical care during the strike period could have lost their lives.
It said the Labour Act of 2003 clearly placed majority of the respondents under “essential services”, adding that “it should not take the intuition of a prophet or a crystal ball,” for anyone to envisage the act of the respondents could lead to a meltdown.
Citing authorities, the court said “public interest must be taken into account when it comes to matters of injunction.”
Advertisement
The action of the respondents, the court noted, violated the Labour Act, because they failed to exhaust the laid-down procedure before resorting to the strike action.
Press conference
Indicting the respondents for announcing their intentions to their employer via the mass media, the court said “press conferences do not constitute proper notice to an employer. It is unfortunate employees talk to their employers through the mass media when there are laid-down procedures.”
It further held that it was not right for parties to resort to other means of resolving disputes, rather than in a civilised and structured manner.
Appeal
One of the lawyers for the respondents, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, expressed dissatisfaction with the court’s decision and indicated his clients’ intention to appeal.
Advertisement