Dear Petty Manager, Workers are employed to work. When they do anything other than that, such as taking to the streets in demonstration against one issue or another or declare a strike and refuse to work, then there must be something definitely wrong. But what is on my mind is not the demonstrations per se, but the issues that lead to these demonstrations or strike actions. Then again, I am also bothered about the breakdown of dialogue - which is perhaps the most effective tool for dealing with these issues. Finally, there are the losses in productivity that occur during the planning, execution and aftermath of these actions. Having said the above, I am wondering what would cause an employer to ignore issues that later blow out of such proportions. Why would an employer fail or refuse to ensure that workers’ grievances are managed effectively since the employer tends to be the loser under these circumstances? Your thoughts please!!! A Concerned CEO Issues in Discussion: A few days ago, a demonstration was staged in Tema by workers under the Tema District Council of Labour. The major issue of demonstration was that Tema Oil Refinery workers were against the use of the Oil Refinery as a ‘tolling’ refinery by GNPC. Other employees in the Tema area joined in the demonstration which later presented a petition to the Tema Municipal Chief Executive. Other employees from the Dock Labour, also in Tema, staged a demonstration against the Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority for the removal of 4 Stevedoring Companies from the list of approved stevedoring companies authorised to operate within the Tema Port. After the demonstration, some employees were dismissed by Management of the Tema Dock Labour Company. In a similar demonstration a few years back, workers of Barclays Bank were seen drumming and dancing amidst singing and shouting on national television at their Corporate Headquarters, High Street, in Accra. A number of their leaders were later dismissed, an action which they challenged in Court. What would cause a decent and astute banker to remove his suit and dance in front of National Television, oblivious of his image and the confidence reposed in him by clients and customers? Workers of Aviace once upon a time decided to declare a strike action in protest against an Arbitration Award which in their opinion was not justified. Management of Aviace dismissed the workers after the strike action was confirmed unlawful. The workers later challenged the dismissal at the National Labour Commission and lost. In all of these case-studies, we see employees taking to the streets against one issue or another. The result has sometimes been dismissal of the workers. It would be very educative to look at some issues that may lead to such actions on the labour front. Then perhaps we can also look at when employees can legally and lawfully declare a strike action or take to the streets for that matter. We will also look at how these actions by employees can be prevented or managed when they occur, and finally discuss how to build the bridges after such occurrences when workers return to work. Is dismissal of employees after a demonstration or strike action lawful and helpful? Strike Action Vs Demonstration: It may seem that because both words (strike action and demonstration) have so far been used interchangeably in this article, they are the same. However, they are different. A strike action constitutes the laying-down of tools by disgruntled workers who seek to register their displeasure as such. Demonstrations are protests normally expected to be peaceful and under police supervision and escort. This protest is usually against leadership and authority - be it government or private institutions. The other side of strike actions is Lockouts, whereby employees are denied access to their offices and workstations in the workplace and forced to stay away from work premises. This also qualifies as an industrial action, as all companies in an industry can agree to shut down and prevent employees from working in protest of continued employee agitations or for any reason they may deem appropriate. How then is a lawful strike action executed? In accordance with the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651) a group of employees that seek to undertake a strike action must first give notice of their intention of resorting to a strike to their employer as well as the National Labour Commission (NLC). But this notice can only be valid when the employees and their employers have failed to agree to refer a pending dispute to voluntary arbitration after mediation processes, or that the dispute remains unresolved at the end of arbitration proceedings. The notice of intention to resort to a strike action must be given within seven clear days after failure to refer a matter to voluntary arbitration and termination of ongoing dialogue or talks. A strike action can only be lawful or legal when it is commenced after the seven days notice to go on strike. So here is an example. Employees in XYZ Company have been in talks over delayed overtime payments. After disagreeing on the matter and declaring a deadlock, the union - if they wish to resort to strike action - must give the management of XYZ Company and the National Labour Commission seven days notice of their intention to resort to strike. They must wait for the entire seven days and are only permitted by the Labour Law to commence the strike action on the 8th day after the notice. Hence, the seven-day notice must expire before strike action can commence. Anything other than this will be unlawful. Now because of the assertive nature of the law regarding strike actions, the NLC is expected upon the notice of the employees to invite the parties for an amicable settlement of the matter under the jurisdiction of the Commission. In the same way, employers are expected to give the same notice in the intended event of a lockout action against employees. A strike action is deemed unlawful when declared during and before the conclusion of any pending Negotiations, Mediation, or other mechanisms aimed at resolving the matter through dialogue. Hence, when the NLC steps into the matter through invitation of the parties, an intended strike action will have to be stayed pending the outcome of the deliberation before the NLC. It may therefore seem that a legitimate strike action may be difficult to undertake legally under the current labour law. What then is the effect of a strike action? When a strike action does not conform to the prescribed provisions of the Labour Law, it may be referred to as an unlawful strike and is liable to some corrective or punitive actions from owners or Management of an organisation. An employee who contravenes the provisions of lawful strike is liable for any damage, loss or injury by any other party in the dispute. This may as well mean that where losses in productivity can be computed and ascertained accurately in cash, such losses can be levelled against the employees or their leaders who took part in the unlawful strike action. Another action against unlawful strike is the termination, without notice, of any worker who took part in the action. Because no single lawful strike action in the country since the passage of the current Labour Laws has been witnessed yet, we continue to wait for the day when employees undertake the first lawful strike action. So, is it workable or possible for employers to terminate the employment of workers who undertake unlawful strike action? Will an employer be within its legitimate rights to dismiss outright, any employee who embarks on an unlawful strike action? Legally in accordance with the Labour Law, we can say yes. As to whether it is operationally expedient, that may vary from company to company. However, it has always been encouraged that employers exercise some courage, confidence and assertiveness to deal seriously with employees who blatantly flout the lawful provisions for undertaking strike action. Such assertiveness is believed to effectively control and discourage employees from jumping to conclusions of strike actions as the common resort to handling employment disagreements and grievances instead of focusing on the table of dialogue. But again, what are employees to do when everything they seem to be complaining about is handled with pittance as though the issues are irrelevant and that the employees are only whining and making a case out of nothing? These issues are more technical then meet the eye and must be handled as such. Demonstrations on the other hand are rather different in a number of ways. The 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana grants as a right to every citizen the freedom of speech and expression. It further grants every citizen the freedom of assembly including freedom to take part in processions and demonstrations. As a control mechanism, the Public Order Act, 1994 (Act 491) requires anyone who intends to hold a special event in public to notify the police not less than 5 days to the intended special event. “Special Event” under these circumstances is defined to mean “procession, parade, carnival, street dance celebration of traditional custom, outdooring of traditional ruler, demonstration, public meeting and similar event, but does not include...” So employees are well within their rights to undertake a demonstration against issues in the workplace. However, this must be undertaken within accepted protocols. Where a demonstration leads to the damage, loss or injuries to any other person, all identified and culpable employees including their leaders may be held liable. Demonstrations also need the approval of the Police who are tasked to maintain order and protect property should the demonstration turn ugly as experienced in some cases. What leads to Strike Actions or Demonstrations? One very common explanation you will get to the above question is “strike actions are the only language managements understand”. This normally would mean that nothing else gets management to sit up other than strike actions. If this assertion is conclusively true, (because I don’t think it applies to all employers) then it is truly sad. Because, in the end, the employer - even if some employees are dismissed after the action - is the loser. Money is always lost in time, customers and clients as well as property. Money is always lost in such conflict situations in the workplace. Employers therefore are better off preventing such occurrences than dealing with employees after the action has taken place, when money and possibly clients would already have been lost. The issues that lead to strike actions and demonstrations are numerous. Most often escalated individual or group grievances may lead to strike actions. Disagreements on all or parts of a Collective Bargaining Agreement under negotiation may sometimes lead to a declaration of strike to drive home a point or two. Sometimes also, decisions taken by management arbitrarily without the input of employees may lead to strike actions in protest of the intended implementation of such arbitrary decisions. Under all these circumstances, it is important for the issues to be well-managed in order to prevent escalation. I can state as a fact that our educational system is suffering partly because of a 9-month strike action undertaken in the 90s by the tertiary education unions. No employer should allow grievances, disputes or disagreements to fester. How do we prevent such occurrences? I have refused to talk about handling the actual occurrence in the heat of the situation because that requires expert intervention. This intervention is obviously expensive and requires that every organisation take the necessary action to prevent the strike action or occurrence in the first place. I am more comfortable with the preventive measures needed to avoid such occurrences in the first place. The first rule is to embrace dialogue as the primary tool to resolving workplace differences. The Labour Law requires every employer and employee to include in the Collective Agreements or Contracts of Employment a provision for the final and conclusive settlement of all differences that arise in the course of the employment relationship. This is important and makes room for parties in an employment relationship to predetermine appropriate mechanisms for dealing with and handling their differences before they occur. When effective grievance and disputes management mechanisms are well in place, disagreements are often dispatched quickly and summarily. Another preventive measure is the sharing of relevant information through well laid out and agreed communication channels. Levels of communication identified and agreed by both parties go a long way to assist in understanding pending issues and challenges in the organisation. This prevents disputes in the long-term. Where information is shared, it is mandatory and statutory for the other person receiving the information to treat it with the strictest confidentiality and not disclose the information to a third-party without consent of the other. Hence, levels of clearance of classified information must be identified and agreed by parties in an employment relationship. Most often, miscommunication is easily identified as the root of many if not all workplace disputes. The issue of equity and fairness, especially in profit-sharing (bonus incentives) is becoming a trouble-area. Another problem area currently is the issue of discrimination in remuneration between locals and expatriates, especially in multinational companies. We could go on and on about what specifically causes or leads to strike actions as they remain numerous and varied. My comments therefore are: if you underestimate the effect of work stoppage or employee strike actions, you will realise all too soon how costly it can be. Businesses have actually closed down in the past as a result of such actions. Yours should not and cannot be the next...!!! The Writer is an International Employment Relations Advocate and the CEO of Corporate Aims Services Ltd, a Labour Law and Employment Relations Consultancy in Ghana. He is also a Mediator and Arbitrator listed with the National Labour Commission, Ghana. Credit: Senyo M. Adjabeng/BFT