BARCLAYS BANK MD IN COURT

THE Managing Director of Barclays Bank Limited, Margaret Mwanakate and the Head of Human Resources Business Partner, Laureen Lokko, has appeared before the Accra Fast Track High Court to show cause why they should not be cited for contempt.
The two were dragged to the court by eight employees who are executives of the local Industrial and Commercial Workers Union (ICU) of the bank following the pendency of a motion for injunction against the bank’s decision to summarily dismiss them.
After hearing the arguments of lawyers of both parties, the court fixed April 16, 2008, to rule on the matter.
The eight employees are Opare Yeboah, Samuel A. Anarwat, Angela Deku, Esther Asiedu Larbi, Gariba Adam Andan, Edward Boakye, Thomas Benjamin Quainoo, and Matthew Kotoku.
According to Mr Albert Adaare, counsel for the applicants, the respondents were in contempt of the court because they prevented the affected workers from going to work and violated provisions in their collective bargaining agreement that suspended employees shall continue to report to his or her nearest branch and during the period be paid their full salary.
He said that respondents were aware of the contempt application and knew its purpose but went ahead to restrain the applicants from entering their offices.
However, counsel for the respondents, Mr Charles Hayibor, described the application as misconceived because there was no proof that the applicants were either prevented from entering their offices or had not been paid their salaries.
According to him, the applicants had been paid their salaries for January and February 2008, an assertion which was disproved by Mr Adaare that although the affected workers had been paid their January salaries they were paid for only 10 days in February.
The disagreement between the applicants and the bank stemmed from the bank’s decision to dismiss the entire executive of the ICU.
An affidavit deposed by Opare Yeboah on behalf of the rest of the applicants in support of the motion for contempt said that on the true and proper interpretation of Articles 15 and 16 of the collective bargaining agreement between the ICU and the bank, the letters issued to them on January 11, 2008 purportedly dismissing them summarily was were illegal and in contravention of the Labour Act, 2003 (ACT 651).
According to the applicants, that action was unconstitutional, null and void and ought to be quashed by the court because it was victimisation of the workers as trade union leaders within the bank.
The applicants said that on February, 8, 2008, they filed an application for interlocutory injunction against the bank seeking to restrain it from preventing them from entering their offices and continue to carry out their duties and responsibilities as employees of the bank.
They said that the said application was served on the bank on February 22, 2008 and that the Managing Director and Human Resources Business Partner, were personally aware of the pendency of the application for injunction.
In spite of their knowledge, the applicants said, the respondents wilfully and intentionally disregarded and treated with disdain the application, which was a sacred process of the court.
The said that for the month of February 2008, the bank withheld their monthly salaries and paid them pittances, which they said the bank described as monthly salaries.