NAGRAT SUES ATTORNEY-GENERAL

By William Yaw Owusu

Saturday October 21,2006
THE National Association of Graduate Teachers (NAGRAT) has filed a suit against the government for failing to grant them a collective bargaining certificate to be able to negotiate with their employer – the Ghana Education Service (GES).

In the suit filed against the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, who is the principal legal advisor of the government, NAGRAT wants a declaration that “Sections 83,84 and 94(5) of the Labour Act 2003 (Act 651) are inconsistent and in contravention of Article 21 of the constitution and are to the extent of such inconsistency null and void.”

It also wants the decision of the Chief Labour Officer that NAGRAT and the Ghana National Association of Teachers (GNAT) belong to the same class of workers to be a mulled as it contravenes Article 21(i) and (e) of the Constitution.

Another relief being sought by the association is an order that the Chief Labour Office issue a bargaining certificate to it to enable it represent the interest of its members, “in as far as negotiations with its employer is concerned.”

In a 22-paragraph statement of claim, filed on Tuesday, NAGRAT contended that it is a registered trade union which had been issued with a certificate in accordance with the Labour Act 2003 (Act 651).

NAGRAT averred that as a trade union its cardinal objective was to promote and protect the economic and social interests of its members by negotiating or bargaining with their employer, the GES for better conditions of service.

NAGRAT said that its existence is based on the freedom of association as enshrined in the Constitution.

“This freedom has considerably been curtailed by virtue of the provisions of the Labour Act 2003 (Act 651) particularly sections 83 and 84 which state that a trade union shall be registered and be issued with certificate by the Chief Labour Officer,” it added.

The association said it must now possess a collective bargaining certificate to be able to negotiate with its employer by virtue of the aforesaid sections of the Labour Act, 2003, Act 651.

The suit stated that “in accordance with sections 83 and 84 of the Labour Act 2003 (651), it applied for the collective bargaining certificate but was not granted.”

Dissatisfied with this, NAGRAT said it petitioned the chief labour officer who, in a response in a letter dated August 22, 2006 stated that the Ghana National Association of Teachers (GNAT) had rather been given the certificate to act on its behalf.

It said when the association sought to know the grounds on which the Chief Labour Officer relied in coming to a decision to grant the bargaining certificate to GNAT, it was informed in writing that it was based on the size of membership of the two unions – NAGRAT and GNAT.

“Plaintiff (NAGRAT) avers that although there is a provision in the Labour Act (Act 651) particularly section 95(4) which stipulated that the labour officer shall, subject to regulations made by the minister, determine which union shall hold a collective bargaining certificate for the class of workers in a situation where there is more than one trade union at the work place, there is no provision in the Labour Act which specifically states a requirement of size and/or number as a condition for the issue of a collective bargaining certificate,” it contended.

NAGRAT further complained that the discretionary power assigned to the chief labour officer to determine who should be given a collective bargaining certificate as per section 99(4) and (5) of the Labour Act 2003 is contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.

This, it contends emanates from the fact that Article 21(1) (e) of the constitution confers on its members the freedom to form or join trade unions or other association, national and international for the protection of their interests.

It said Article 24(4) of the constitution further makes it clear that restrictions shall not be placed in the exercise of the right conferred by clause 3 of the article except restrictions prescribed by law and reasonably necessary in the interest of national security, public order or for the protection of rights and freedom of others.

By their refusal to grant it the bargaining certificate, the suit said NAGRAT has been rendered impotent and in effective in the protection of the economic and other interests of its members.

The NAGRAT said that section 99(5) of the Labour Act which the chief labour officer relied on to interpret the phrase “that same class of workers at a particular time” to mean teachers generally is not applicable.

“This is because of the independent existence of similar associations of teachers such as the Polytechnic Teachers Association of Ghana (POTAG) and the University Teachers Association of Ghana (UTAG),” it said.

“Plaintiff avers that GNAT and NAGRAT cannot be referred to as belonging to the same class of workers in the light of the above averments,” it added.