FTC dismisses Labour Commission's Preliminary Objection

Accra, Oct. 20, GNA - An Accra Fast Track Court on Friday expunged a preliminary objection raised by the National Labour Commission (NLC) to compel the National Association of Graduate Teachers (NAGRAT) to call off its strike.

The Leadership and members of NAGRAT, the Respondent, embarked on a strike action effective September 1, 2006.

Mr Justice Richard Asamoah, the trial judge, noted that the NLC, the Applicant's motion contained matters of law, whereas 93this is a matter being fought on affidavit evidence".

He said matters of law could be included in affidavit, except those that were injurious and, therefore, contended that the reference upon which the Applicant based his law was not harmful. Mr Justice Asamoah stated: "Irregularities that had been added must therefore, be expunged."

No cost was awarded.

Defending the affidavit supporting the application by motion, Mr J. Opoku Agyei, Counsel for the Commission, said the NAGRAT embarked on the strike action, without complying with Sections 159 and 160 of ACT 651, thus rendering the strike action illegal.

Mr Agyei explained Section 159 states that: "Where either party intending to take strike action or institute lockout, shall give written notice of this to the other party and the Commission within seven days, after failure to agree to any terms refer the dispute to a voluntary arbitration or the termination of the proceedings."

Mr Agyei said aside the fact that the Respondent had not indicated that any dispute existed between it and the Ghana Education Service, which should be referred to the Commission for resolution through voluntary arbitration, no notice of intention to resort to strike was served on the Commission as required by law.

That, the Commission met the Leadership of the Respondent on September 27, 2006r and urged them to call off the strike action to enable the Commission to facilitate negotiation between GES and the leadership of Ghana National Association of Teachers and the Respondent under Section 102 of ACT 651.

That, the Commission on October 5, 2006, served a formal order dated October 4 in which the Leadership and the members of NAGRAT were directed to call off the illegal strike, to enable the Commission to facilitate negotiations to resolve the concern of teachers under GES in accordance with the Labour Act 2003.

That the Leadership and members of the Respondent have failed or neglected to call off the illegal strike, thus failing to rectify the irregularities as directed by the Commission in accordance with Section 139 (1) of Act 651

Replying, Mr Martin Archie Danso Jnr. Counsel for NAGRAT stated: "We are of the humble view that the application is misconceived and it is nothing, but a deliberate attempt to compel us to call off our action which is aimed at articulating our grievances." Mr Danso said NAGRAT categorically denied contention in paragraph 5, of the affidavit, in support to the effect that the Respondent embarked on the strike action, without complying with named sections, of the said Labour Act.

Counsel said the simple truth was that all the differences that had hitherto existed between the Respondent and the GES were resolved through various interventions and negotiations by well-meaning bodies such as Parliamentary Select Committee on Education with agreed deadlines to be met, adding the said deadlines were all ignored by the GES.

He said NAGRAT's present action, which was labelled as illegal, was a direct result of the refusal of its employers to honour their side of the agreement reached in the past.

Mr Danso said it was, therefore, grossly misleading for the Deponent of the affidavit in support, who incidentally was the author of the invitation letter to depose that the meeting of the September 27, 2006 was convened to urge the Respondent to call off the strike action. "We maintain that no issue about calling off the strike action was discussed on the said date, or at the said meeting, or at all and it is irresponsible of the Deponent to peddle such falsehood in paragraph nine of the affidavit in support," he said.

The Court will give ruling on the matter on October 25.