GPHA: Ex-casual workers threatening demo lost case at Supreme Court

The Management of the Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority (GPHA) has stated that some former casual workers laid off two decades ago, who are now threatening to picket at the premises of the Tema Port to demand compensation, have no case as they lost their claim at the Supreme Court.
Despite invoking the review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, they again lost their case.
A statement signed by Mrs. Esther Gyebi-Donkor, General Manager, Marketing and Corporate Affairs of GPHA, noted that even though the GPHA paid the former workers some compensation out of goodwill, the group expressed dissatisfaction and instituted an action at the High Court against the Authority. This matter eventually traveled to the Supreme Court, where they lost.
Mrs. Gyebi-Donkor emphasized that the authority adheres strictly to labor laws and regulations concerning employee severance benefits. She highlighted that the GPHA handled each case of separation from service with due diligence and according to the terms and conditions outlined in the employment contracts and relevant labor legislation.
“The recent assertions made by the aforementioned group and their threats of intended demonstrations are baseless and not supported by factual evidence,” she stated.
While acknowledging that demonstrations are a constitutional right, she reminded the group that these rights come with equal constitutional and statutory obligations.
She also reminded them that the Supreme Court judgment had not been overturned and, therefore, legally, the GPHA did not owe them any severance pay.
“We would like to remind the members of this group that the Port enclave is a security zone, and any attempt to unduly disrupt operations will have security implications,” she added.
Regarding the facts surrounding the layoff of the casual workers, the GPHA noted that in 2001, the government of Ghana, upon advice from the World Bank, decided to reform the ports to improve service delivery and take advantage of regional growth in shipping.
As part of this reform, a large share of port operations, previously handled by the port authority, were ceded to private operators with the necessary resources to provide quality service to customers.
As a result, the GPHA had to reduce its staff numbers. Some staff opted to join private operators, while others chose to go home. These staff members included both permanent and casual workers.
Despite the layoffs, all personnel were given substantial compensation. Permanent staff were offered two options: early voluntary retirement or compulsory retirement.
The early voluntary retirement package was so attractive that it was oversubscribed, and no worker was compulsorily relieved of their duties.
The statement explained that casual workers (dockers) were employed on a daily basis, meaning they only worked and got paid when there was a job available for that day.
Consequently, they had no rights to claims for permanency of work or any long service or retirement benefits, regardless of how long they worked as casual laborers at the ports.
“The Authority, out of its magnanimity, decided to pay them a certain sum out of goodwill (a handshake in our parlance) for their service,” the statement added.
“Please note that the Authority was not under any obligation to do so compared to permanent workers. Aside from that, a well-structured Port casual labor company was formed to assimilate them seamlessly to continue their work as casual dockers.”