The tussle over whether or not workers of the Customs, Excise and Preventive Service (CEPS) can constitute themselves into organised labour is now a matter before the Supreme Court. The matter was taken to the highest court of the land by management of CEPS on the grounds that the portion of the Labour Act 2003 (Act 651) which gave workers the mandate to form or belong to a union was inconsistent with the 1992 Constitution. The portion being challenged by CEPS is Section 1 of the Labour Act 2003 (Act 651), which says "This Act applies to all workers and to all employers except the Armed Forces, the Police Service, the Prison Service and the Security and Intelligence Agencies specified under the Security and Intelligence Agencies Act 1996 (Act 526)." Earlier, CEPS had been dragged to the Accra Fast Track High Court by the National Labour Commission (NLC) to compel CEPS to convene negotiations with the Public Services Workers Union (PSWU) of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) on the issue of unionization. CEPS then filed an application challenging the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to hear the matter. It is seeking a declaration that the portion of the Labour Act which covers CEPS was "inconsistent with or in contravention of Article 24 (4) of the Constitution and to that extent, the court ought to declare that restrictions prescribed by law and reasonably necessary in the interest of national security or public order that require CEPS be excluded from the application of the Labour Act 2003 (Act 651)." It is also praying the Supreme Court to declare null and void and of no effect a Collective Bargaining Certificate dated March 27, 1987 which was issued to cover the CEPS. In the substantive writ against the CEPS, the NLC said the PSWU lodged with it a complaint against the CEPS for its failure to convene a Standing Negotiating Committee with the union in accordance with Section 102 of the Labour Act. It said the PSWU applied for and obtained a Collective Bargaining Certificate on behalf of CEPS workers in accordance with the Industrial Relations Act, 1965. The management of CEPS, in response, referred to a long-standing court issue, dating back to 1992, which was yet to be determined. It said the NLC, on receipt of the CEPS letter, requested the PSWU to confirm the claim of a legal suit on the issue of unionization by CEPS workers. The PSWU, in response, stated that on October 17, 2006, it discontinued the suit against the management of CEPS. According to the affidavit, after critically studying all the correspondence before it, per letter NLC/I00/05/48G of June 22, 2007, the NLC requested the management of CEPS to explain its continued uncooperative attitude towards negotiations with the PSWU. The Commission, it said, pointed out to the management of CEPS that it was obliged by law to negotiate with the PSWU once it had been registered and duly certified by the Chief Labour Officer in accordance with Sections 101 and 102 of the Labour Act, 2003. It said the Commission served a final order on the management of CEPS to convene the Standing Negotiating Committee with the PSWU and commence negotiations within seven days upon receipt of the Commission's letter of June 20, 2907. In making the order, the Commission indicated that it was guided by Section 104 of the Labour Act with the result that failure to comply would compel the Commission to seek enforcement in the High Court. According to the Commission, the management of CEPS, in response to its final order, stated that it had referred the whole issue to the Revenue Agencies Board for policy guidelines and final decision. It said upon critical examination of the CEPS (Management) Law, 1993 and the Revenue Agencies (Governing) Board Act, 1998, the Revenue Board could be said to be clothed with the capacity to decide on the question of whether the management of CEPS should negotiate with the PSWU or not. The Commission contended that the referral of the issue by the management of CEPS to the Revenue Board should be seen as an attempt to interfere with the right of workers to form or affiliate with a union of their own choice, and also a systematic calculation to delay a right conferred on them under the Labour Act, as well as the 1992 Constitution. According to the NLC, once the union had obtained a Collective Bargaining Certificate, the same was by law clothed with the capacity to negotiate with the management of CEPS. However, in an affidavit in opposition, the CEPS has raised preliminary legal points, stating that the entire mode of initiating the instant action against the CEPS offended the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 (C.I. 47) because the action was not commenced by a writ of summons. The defendant further argued that the commencement of the action without the notification of the Attorney-General was contrary to the State Proceedings Act 1998, Act 555, adding that "same ought to be either dismissed as struck out or adjourned sine die to enable applicant to comply with the relevant provisions of Act 555". The defendant accordingly prayed the court to dismiss NLC's application since it was brought on a false premise. At the Fast Track High Court's sitting in Accra on Tuesday, counsel for the NLC prayed the court to give a short adjournment to enable it to study the affidavit in opposition. The court, presided over by Mrs Iris May Brown, accordingly adjourned the matter to Wednesday for hearing. Source: Daily Graphic