Nov 2019 Q1 d.
Koby Afadzie and Odartey Nelson were employed by Alfar Preparatory School to teach Mathematics and Social Science, respectively. By the terms of their employment, the two were to be on probation for eight (8) months before they could be fully appointed. Similarly, Adu Owusu and Kafui Yaw, were engaged by the school as casual workers charged with the responsibility of keeping the school compound and classrooms clean. After the period of probation, the school authorities informed Koby Afadzie and Odartey Nelson that the school was not interested in giving them permanent appointments because of unsatisfactory performance. On the other hand, Adu Owusu and Kafui Yaw had their appointment terminated without any reason. The four (4) workers intend to take legal action against the school for compensation, accusing it of unfairly terminating their respective appointments.
Required:
Explain whether the workers will succeed in their respective intended legal action. (10 marks)
View Solution
The issue to be determined in the scenario is whether, by law, workers on probation and casual workers, are entitled to compensation in a situation of termination of their respective appointments.
- The first group of workers in the question are those on probation whose appointments have been terminated without they being paid compensation.
- The second categories are casual workers.
- Section 66 of the Labour Act, 2003, Act 651, of Part VIII, states that the two(2) categories of workers cannot have the intervention of the National Labour Commission, to negotiate for redundancy pay and for any mitigation in the event of a dispute. In other words, by law, the two (2) categories of workers cannot complain that their appointments have been unfairly terminated.
That the workers cannot, therefore, succeed in any intended legal action because the provisions in Part VIII of the Labour Act, 2003, Act 651 do not cover them.