IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIERRA LEON£ INDUSTRIAL DIVISION

 

 

ICl0/15

NATHANIEL KANGAJU &.ORS.                             PLAINTIFF

 

 

 

AND

 

THEGENERALMANAGER LEONE DOCK COMPANY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT

 

 

BEFORE THE HON. MR. JUSTICE SENGU KOROMA JA. PRESIDENT OF THE INDUSTRIAL  COURTJUDGMENT DELIVERED ON THE 15TH FEBRUARY,  2018

1. This matter was referred to the Industrial Court by the  Ministry  of  Labour and Social Security ("the Ministry") pursuant to Section 35 (1) of the Regulation of Wages and Industrial Relation Act, No. 18 of 1971 ("The Principal  Act")  and    Rule  s of  the    High  Court  (Industrial   Relations Procedural Rules) 2010 ("The Rules").

I-'

1. The Plaintiffs in this matter are claiming Backlog salaries, end of   service benefits  and other entitlements                .l,!.       - t         ·
2.  

' , ·,.· -

As provided for in the Principal Act, t tMini; if of Labour and Social Security ((The Ministry) invited• ;.,t l S. ant ,to series of meetings, all of which did not yield any dividend du 'the apparent non-co-operation of the  Defendant.  For exampl  :,, letter from the General  Manager ofthe  Defendants Company, dated the.Ath May,,2015, paragraph 1 thereof, the   Commissionrr 'of t.Labour        ame 0i:;d that "it has come to the full knowledge. of,Qiinis hat Management of the Leone  Dock Co  pan },ems t6li   wiili    resolving thematt, r in question due to the 1nexcusa          /bsence_,(some·Trustee members ...

1. th \\ th  J J\, 01 ,,Pthe  Ministry  forwarded  to  the Defendants .,t'comput;;_tion of altentitlements due the Plaintiffs. In the said letter, the Jfha{! il,}Jear that the computations were done together with Sier   Jf9ne                Dock  Workers'   Union   and   representatives     of   the Defendants;rThe Defendants  were given  a week to  pay the workers   but this was not done.
2. The matter was finally forwarded to the Industrial Court on the 25th June, 2015 and summons issued on the 6th October, 2015

 

 

 

SMK/CK2 of9

 

EXAMINATION  OF WITNESSES

PW1 -   Nathaniel Kangaju

1. PW1 testified that he was employed as a Stevedore by the Defendant for a period of four years. He worked there from 2012 to 2015. The last salary he  received was  Le202,  000/00,  a total of Le88o,  000/00  Monthly.  At

the   end  of  his  services,  he  was  paid  no benefits and      even  when the Maritime  Union  intervened,  the   Defendants·  still  refused  to   pay  his

'i .

benefits.                                                     ,'ii         ''}                 · ·    ·.

tk; .,          \;'.",_ '..:,

1. PW1 admitted knowing the other Plaintiffs,';Vho'had been his co-workers

 

<,.,

at the Defendants Company

PW1.testified that h s ben were f'con;ij:> t ,d..His ervices were terminated verbally in 2015 tn he h1! r!.ay slips, i enti cards and  other document t_°,. { ve that he =d    for "them. The identity card was

tendered as Exhipit '                                :;:,/·

1. He  pray.·e.d the, ,ur.. t.·  ta,tYe·trhe·.Dffendants  to  pay  their  terminal

benefits and other lntitlements

3'>!,,;_                         ...                "

Cross-Examirii tion            ·· ,,,,         '·

"'\'":·"""'                                        ,i.f;-,.l,

1. indei;;, i/tssi     inati; Pw1 insisted that he worked continuously for

the Defeiljiant  f i.\:};penod  of four years but  agreed that  he was     never g { aj Jt:1 i ppointment nor th  of termination as the latter was done verbally by the Manager, a Mr. NJie.

"¥ ;/t: - ·, ·''

1. PW1  conf\pned  working  with  93  other  employees  but  did  not  know

whether the other employees have been paid. He insisted that his wages were charged weekly but paid monthly.

1. He agreed that his entitlements and those of the other were computed by the Maritime Union but this was not accepted by the Ministry.

 

 

SMK/CK3 of9

 

PW2 - Gibrilla Kamara

1. This witness corroborated the testimony of PW1 and he specifically mentioned is1 October, 2011 as their date of employment and January, 2016 as date of termination.  He also tendered his identity card.
2. He  confirmed  that  this  position  was  the  same  for  all  of  the    other

Plaintiffs -  in respect of letters of appointment a,ndletters of  termination.

,r;,.

1. PW2 tendered  his pay ship which  was markecf'as  Exhibit :'B"

' "'                    .   .

Cross-Examination                                       4.\       \ fi .    ·    ..·.·.··

1.  

...,....           ·,:>..      ·..

The  witness  denied  being  a  casual  worker  working  by  the  hour. He

·.,:"-'··h,......

agreed that he was paid by the n· J), ·:  cB'.o.'rked but this was done

 

 

'    ,•.."B".  but  insisted

at the end of the month.

.,f'\1',{,¢t:
 

···· ;,-....::,.  ' •'. .

 

$                                  -;-r                                  4><_ - --"

1. PW2 agreed that there was no.i:pention? f monthly payment on   Exhibit

th;it he was d,,the   f;u1, 800,000/00 monthly.

..•,,,

However  taxes and  utipn  due were dedt1ct d  and the net  pay was  Le1,

 

"',',.       '"     ....

1)-                         .i·,-'-".,                                       '-c:._'!.,jY

 

"·

304,718.00. He''   powever1  a:-,   greed th, at the·sum of Le1, 800,000/00 was not stated on Exhibit "Bl ,                            l f

1. PW2 e l;in.ed th!i;)ie co ined about that as some allowances whi,,ch'.hould,,ha:ve been paid was never. given to them.

19.' n t 1(hiechJ'!ti_of heir work, PW2 explained that the Plaintiffs wJ*ed 6£:'dif'ferent shifts and in "gangs". There were forty (40) gangs working by shifts -  each gang would only work when there were shifts.

¥ .-·•

,,,1_ ),!.,,,_,,,:

1. PW2 admitted  that as the signalman,  his rate was higher than  ordinargang member. He would therefore be surprised to hear that the benefits

of all of them as computed were all the same.

1. He did not know that the workers of the Defendant were  made redundant and paid redundancy benefits by the Ministry. PW2 answered that  he  did  not  know  Jeffrey  Moijueh,  Zainab  Mansaray,  Sheriff    B.

 

SMK/CK4 of9

 

Kamara, and Brima Kanu. He however knew that apart from the Bauxite and Rutile, mines they worked in other areas where discomfort allowance was not paid anywhere else.

1. On the strength of the workforce, PW2 replied that there were 40 gangs with 12 people in each gang with a total of 480 people. He stated that it was possible for all of these people to work together.

PW3 -Allieu Fofanah.                                          ., .:., ,;,

,.;/'·

1. Mr.  Fofanah  described  himself  as  a  Trade  Unionist  and   Secretary

l                  ' :.:>t

 

',     ..           "''·        .....

General  of the  Sierra  Leone Dock Workers  Union.  He knew the parties

"- l'                '\.>•!t ;.                                     ···'.'.i""

and     the   dispute  between  them.  His  organj .ation_9rganisedtworkers for the Defend.ant Com a.ny and reR €s \ } s . o kers f negotiation and collective bargaining.    ,1.ilf.                                    'i     \1i,,:\.i,i,.

1. In  relation  to  the  presentt'!Ilatter,{he  testifi d  that  sometime    in

October,  2014,  the  l).efendants""dec-ided  t''o<i's.cale  down  their  operations and  redundant  son\ staff  which  ision  affected  the  Plaintiffs.  Thematter  was  reSti:ted   th Mini'Ul  fu conciliation  and  the Minister requeste jhis      1·a11i.sat ti!·a·qgdfthe   Defendants    to   compute   the

..,,1:entitlements of the  Plaiiitiffs. After some legal arguments, the letter  from the;M1n1ster 1n that respect was tendered as Exh1b1t C -1   2 • The Defendants

 

thf

.;cdid   not\'.tattend   to ·•·        various   invitations    or   provide   their    own puta blis.lof...th:· Plaintiffs'   entitlements.   Some  industrial     unrest

Occu:,1f t ?ttly because of this unrest, the Sierra Leone Ports Authority1...LPA)  intervened  and  agreed  to  pay  the  workers  with  the

understanding that they would be reimbursed from the proceeds of the payments made to the Defendants from the services of the Plaintiffs. An agreement to that effect was signed on the 14th April, 2014 which was tendered as Exhibit "F"

 

 

SMK/CKS of9

 

1. He testified that the Trustees from the Defendants did not attend? He also referred to a memorandum from the SLPA. The Plaintiffs had worked for the company since 2011 when the Company came into operation. The witness testified that since the Plaintiffs were made redundant, they were entitled to redundancy benefits.
2. PW3 was recalled on the 14th December, 2016'fcii:further examination-

N'',,,     ""

in-chief.  He  testified  that  he  had  computea  the  entitlements   of   the

,( '.             ..<·\

Plaintiffs his capacity as the Secretary-Generalof the Union. He  testified

,            '\'h,              '-_J,"i:"'

that  the  Computations  were  a  compromise  as:.'the  Ministry  was also

"'< ;; . ...          "·.'.  ::·::'.. ,,         ·?'\ '

looking  into  the  issue.  The  corop\it<1tiqns \v re  not  honoured  by the

,el··.. '

 

--.

Defendants. These weretened a's Exhibitli'E" ·:

;,,.

Cross  examination                            ·            "'·...; .           ·

'{

1. On the 20th JanuJ.fY, 2017, Mr.  [s-Ga'r ,on for the  Defendants cross

examined Pw3.       '   -                           "J•'

.'(; lll,               f'       [if

1. On Exhibit' '.F'' , P q admitted 'that he was present when  the

 

M.  1. n1ster.,  1gned t liel,>h..1 1tu  t
 

,,h
 

en a Mr. nAL-· lZ d1"d so.

 

=CO==M.._.,_N...T      ::;.\.·.,.
 

,,1,,      J

 

..,,...,                  ·+- ; --                         --.!

29.,l'The"rµ_atter'a is sta,.was adjourned to 23rd January, 2017.

S nc ;:as aii l!Pled to anuary,  2017, neither the  Defendant  nor his Couns l(1s"'ap 1n Court 1 respect of same. The Defendants knew that there was(an action 1n Court against them and should have as any prudent

corporate inst 6'n followed up on it.

••

1. On  the  25th September,  2017,  the  Plaintiffs'  Counsel  informed the

Court that he had written to the Defendants' Counsel informing  him of the adjourned date. On the basis of this information, the file was withdrawn for Judgment.

 

 

SMK/CKG of9

 

1. This Court has power under the provisions of Rule 8 of the High Court (Industrial Court Division Procedure) Rules, 2000 to proceed to Judgment when the Defendant has failed to appear. The matter had been adjourned on several occasions for the Defendants to open their case to no avail.
2. The  principal  responsibility of this Court  and  its enabling legislation

and Rules are for the regulation of the  relationshipb,etween the employer

·<

and  employee or put in another way, the  user of labour and the employer

·\

oflabour.                                                  ,,        .\,

.J.· .A1-.          \  \l  t\             . -

1. In the instant case, from the careful examinati?ns of the,witnesses, I have been able discern two main.cissues.in dispute:
   1. Whether the Plaintiffs w     fJ i''tiirker and  therefore  not

entitled to redunda     y (!\,end f e ce benefits

1. If   the   Plai gffs   were  eh\1{  to').henefits      what   will  be  the

 

quant.u.. m"'. '" ·,)·,.. •..                . .
 

&_j;,,''·'·

 

1. The first quiftion caiYffor a detlrmin'ation of who a casual worker is.

phrase     fil,.Wo

r.,,,,.

The 4 ,',   C   ,,   i§,.,Q,ft'fri used to describe workers who are not part oftliepermane .staffJ::iut who supply services on an irregular or fleJ!ibie basi ft n tome t a fluctuating demand for work. The essential

 

f&.s1.1iil'

,                    is',\                  c>,.                #if

•tharactetistics of                 worker are as follows:

.    .Jrir 1i4 h urs of work

'-'·1- ·,

• Usually,;i, irregular hours (but can work regular hours)
• Does notg t paid medical or annual leave
• Can  end  employment    without   notice   unless   notice  1s  required    by agreement, award or employment  contract.

1. It should  be noted  however that Casual Workers get a     higher  hourly

rate  than  equivalent  full-time  or  part-time  employees.       This is called "Casual Loading".

 

SMK/CK7 of9

 

 

 

 

1. In the instant case, the Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant  continuously for period of four years. No letter of employment was given to the Plaintiffs clearly stating the nature of their employment. This was contrary to the provisions of Section 4 of the Employer and  Employee Act, Cap 212 of the Laws of Sierra Leone, 1960. This Section provides that "A Contract of Service which, or a sufficient memorandum of which,  is not in writing  and signing by the parties ther to       hall  not be binding or

valid for a longer period than six months from.the   making.thereof'.

ti;}}                      '  ".' ,

1. The  Defendant  ought  to  have  given  a_,:writtetjJetters  of employment to

\Ii.      'lii,'                    vj<•c

the  Plaintiffs  before  the  expiration  of "six months. which  would  have

'·•,.)•,.            ·,·.}:··_.·t:'               ,·.:'

specified whether they were cas1J -l:.11  , 'i1e -!.employees.   By the  said

provision, the initial agree rit betwe n the Pl;iintiffs and the Defendant eased  to have effec after  ·               -hs.'lltft g uld b .ii ht to presume that

1n the  absence of evidence to the contrary, the Plaintiffs thereafter   could

be treated as permif  nlstaff.                ·           '

 

1. I am strengtli

 

ediJ  ew     xnibit "H" which is an undertaking

1

 

by  the    an..agem   h..of  the\$Jen:;t Leone  Ports  Authority  to  facilitate

""'-               '<tf         "'#'.

payment   cr(f,:tlle  outst\ ing Hialance  due  to  Leone   Dock  Company

19rk'e' i (t         Jf  intiff j   herein)   by   the   Defendants.   In   the   said

1

-   M morandum,     date.dsf2th  June,    2015  the    Board   of   Directors   and

',,,,       Jf.,;;,,,,                                                 .                  .

Ma  i':1'1en 4 ihe  Defendants  authorised  the  Sierra  Leone   Ports

Authority,.Jo  deduct  any  amount  owed  to  the  aggrieved  workers from

",¥)},,  '

invoices s19mitted  by the  said  Defendants  in  the  event of Default. This

Memorandum was signed by the General Manager of Defendants, the Minister of Labour and Social Security, the General Manager of the Sierra Leone Ports Authority, amongst others. Attached to that Memorandum was a spread sheet containing the names of the Plaintiffs and their entitlements  for  End  of Service  Benefits  and  redundancy.  Against this

 

SMK/CKS of9

 

 

 

 

backdrop, I do not see how the Defendants could now lead this Court to treat the Plaintiffs as casual workers. They were not but could be deemed to have been permanent staff. Being permanent workers, they were also entitled to be given notice of termination.

In   the   circumstances,   Judgment    is   hereby   given   1n   favour   of   the

Plaintiffs, subject to the following

...

 

.

1.        That the Commissioner  of Labour IQ, recomputes  the entitlements

.

of  the   Plaintiff.sin  respect  of  failure  to  give  notice.of termination,

'' ii           ,,: ,

end of service benefits and redundancy compensation and submit

.                ,-1 ;'¥,...            ·"/:i?'                   '</-

 

same on the  next adJourned date   ''"1'1
 

·'"'·

,,;;i ,,.

: .                "':,_  ... ,,

 

II.         Matter adjourned to Thur  dav!H8   Ma·;i      8,t { 30AM.

-ttfil

"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SMK/CK9 of9