NLC Chairman advised to step down, Tuesday, March 20, 2012,pg 20
THE Industrial and Labour Fast Track High Court has advised the Chairman of the National Labour Commission (NLC) to step aside in a case involving the SG-SSB Bank and the Industrial and Commercial Workers Union (ICU) because of alleged conflict of interest.
The court, presided over by Justice Kwabena Asuman-Adu, ruled that even though Mr Joseph Aryitey is one out of five panellists who were handling the case and could not influence the outcome, it would be in his own interest to step aside, since an objection had been raised.
The court also held that although the ICU provided some evidence that Mr Aryitey had acted as solicitor for the bank at a point, it was not enough ground for which he could be said to be bias.
Consequently, it dismissed an application for an injunction to restrain the NLC boss from sitting on the current case and any other case involving the SG-SSB Bank and the ICU.
The court maintained that although Mr Aryitey was the chairman of the NLC, he was just a facilitator of the process and could not affect the outcome of the arbitration process over which the ICU had raised objections.
The ICU had gone to court praying it to, among other things, grant an order of certiorari to quash the proceeding of the NLC in the matter between the SG-SSB Bank and the ICU, dated September 28, 2011.
It also sought the award of damages in favour of the ICU.
The main ground for the application was that the chairman of the NLC was disqualified on grounds of bias or likelihood of bias to sit on the matter.
In an affidavit to support its application for judicial review, the ICU stated that it represented employees of the SG-SSB Bank and held the collective bargaining certificate covering professional and managerial staff of the bank which empowered it to negotiate on behalf of the workers.
The document set out conditions of service of the ICU members at the SG-SSB Bank.
Some time after December 3, 2010, the ICU and the SG-SSB Bank began negotiations for a review of the collective bargaining agreement which had expired.
Negotiations were going on smoothly between the ICU and the bank when, suddenly, the ICU was summoned to appear before the NLC for the hearing of a complaint that the bank had brought before the commission.
On September 28, 2011, the ICU and the bank appeared before the NLC for the hearing of the matter and throughout the proceedings, the ICU affidavit alleged that Mr Aryitey was very hostile to the ICU patronising for the bank.
It alleged that on the day in question, Mr Aryitey had made disparaging remarks concerning the officers of the ICU who went to represent the union at the hearing.
He was also alleged to have informed the bank not to release information which the ICU had requested from it for the purpose of negotiations.
It claimed that the ICU, subsequently, discovered that Mr Aryitey, at the time he sat on the matter involving the ICU and the SG-SSB Bank, was a legal consultant of the bank and expected monetary returns from the bank.
It noted that subsequent to the proceedings at the commission, Mr Aryitey was paid GH¢3,206.95 by the bank for his services to it on November 1, 2011.
The affidavit also alleged that the NLC boss was the chairman of the NLC, hence a powerful figure at the commission and had a say in the appointment of panel members to hear matters brought before it.
In a counter affidavit, the NLC said both parties knew very well that Mr Aryitey was counsel for the bank in another matter which he faithfully disclosed to both parties.
It further noted that Mr Aryitey was not in a position to impose his decision on the matter as alleged.
“The cheque issued was not in respect of this matter, neither is the selection of the mediators the preserve of the commission, for which reason the applicant (ICU) has cause to think that the chairman can influence the case against them. The fears of the applicant are, therefore, misplaced and for this reason, the reliefs being sought under and by virtue of the application must not be granted,” it said.
The court, presided over by Justice Kwabena Asuman-Adu, ruled that even though Mr Joseph Aryitey is one out of five panellists who were handling the case and could not influence the outcome, it would be in his own interest to step aside, since an objection had been raised.
The court also held that although the ICU provided some evidence that Mr Aryitey had acted as solicitor for the bank at a point, it was not enough ground for which he could be said to be bias.
Consequently, it dismissed an application for an injunction to restrain the NLC boss from sitting on the current case and any other case involving the SG-SSB Bank and the ICU.
The court maintained that although Mr Aryitey was the chairman of the NLC, he was just a facilitator of the process and could not affect the outcome of the arbitration process over which the ICU had raised objections.
The ICU had gone to court praying it to, among other things, grant an order of certiorari to quash the proceeding of the NLC in the matter between the SG-SSB Bank and the ICU, dated September 28, 2011.
It also sought the award of damages in favour of the ICU.
The main ground for the application was that the chairman of the NLC was disqualified on grounds of bias or likelihood of bias to sit on the matter.
In an affidavit to support its application for judicial review, the ICU stated that it represented employees of the SG-SSB Bank and held the collective bargaining certificate covering professional and managerial staff of the bank which empowered it to negotiate on behalf of the workers.
The document set out conditions of service of the ICU members at the SG-SSB Bank.
Some time after December 3, 2010, the ICU and the SG-SSB Bank began negotiations for a review of the collective bargaining agreement which had expired.
Negotiations were going on smoothly between the ICU and the bank when, suddenly, the ICU was summoned to appear before the NLC for the hearing of a complaint that the bank had brought before the commission.
On September 28, 2011, the ICU and the bank appeared before the NLC for the hearing of the matter and throughout the proceedings, the ICU affidavit alleged that Mr Aryitey was very hostile to the ICU patronising for the bank.
It alleged that on the day in question, Mr Aryitey had made disparaging remarks concerning the officers of the ICU who went to represent the union at the hearing.
He was also alleged to have informed the bank not to release information which the ICU had requested from it for the purpose of negotiations.
It claimed that the ICU, subsequently, discovered that Mr Aryitey, at the time he sat on the matter involving the ICU and the SG-SSB Bank, was a legal consultant of the bank and expected monetary returns from the bank.
It noted that subsequent to the proceedings at the commission, Mr Aryitey was paid GH¢3,206.95 by the bank for his services to it on November 1, 2011.
The affidavit also alleged that the NLC boss was the chairman of the NLC, hence a powerful figure at the commission and had a say in the appointment of panel members to hear matters brought before it.
In a counter affidavit, the NLC said both parties knew very well that Mr Aryitey was counsel for the bank in another matter which he faithfully disclosed to both parties.
It further noted that Mr Aryitey was not in a position to impose his decision on the matter as alleged.
“The cheque issued was not in respect of this matter, neither is the selection of the mediators the preserve of the commission, for which reason the applicant (ICU) has cause to think that the chairman can influence the case against them. The fears of the applicant are, therefore, misplaced and for this reason, the reliefs being sought under and by virtue of the application must not be granted,” it said.
Comments
Post a Comment