Court gives two 30 days to resolve differences

Wednesday, February 3, 2010 (Page 31)

THE Industrial and Labour Division of the Fast Track High Court yesterday gave parties in a suit instituted by a former employee of Nestle Central and West Africa for wrongful termination of employment 30 days to resolve their differences.
The court also directed that counsel for both parties must actively participate in the settlement process and duly inform the court about the outcome of the settlement.
Mr Philip Anane, a former Corporate Communications and Public Affairs Manager of Nestle Central and West Africa, dragged his employers to court for wrongfully terminating his employment.
He also accused the regional/market head under the Nestle Performance Evaluation who terminated his appointment of “racism and intolerance” and in “contravention of Nestle’s own Human Resource Policy and Corporate Business Principles”.
He is, therefore, seeking general and special damages for the wrongful and unfair termination of his contract, as well as “consequential losses arising, including injury to reputation, loss of expectation and diminution of future prospects of employment”.
However, Nestle Central and West Africa Limited has denied any wrongdoing and accused the plaintiff of recurrent under-performance and has since filed a counter motion praying the court to order the plaintiff to vacate the company’s rented property, pay accumulated rent on the property, as well as hand over its vehicle.
At the court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, the trial judge consolidated the counter motion to the main suit filed by Mr Anane and directed parties in the matter to settle their differences.
The court will move to hear the matter on its merit and give its final judgement if parties are not able to come to an agreement.
In the substantive suit, Mr Anane is praying the court to order the defendant to pay him lump compensation, remuneration for each year of service, payment in lieu of notice, settlement of all outstanding benefits, bonuses, allowances, leave of vacation, accrued management bonus scheme, among others.
The plaintiff is also praying the court to order the defendant to pay his benefits at the prevailing commercial bank rate, as well as costs and other reliefs the court may deem fit.
A statement of claim accompanying the writ of summons filed on behalf of the plaintiff by his lawyer, Mr Peter Zwennes, stated, among others, that Mr Anane, who is a Swiss/Ghanaian, was employed by the defendant on April 1, 2007 as an expatriate.
It said prior to his employment, Mr Anane had worked with reputable companies in Switzerland and during his tenure with the defendant company he performed his duties with diligence and dedication, adding that in the first year of service, the then Regional/Market Head under the Nestle Performance Evaluation, Mr Friedrich Mahler, assessed Anane’s performance as “Masters”, translated into “very satisfactory performance”.
According to the statement of claim, he never received any query between February 2008 when Mr Etienne Benet took over from Mr Mahler, to March 16, 2009, being the date his contract was terminated.
The plaintiff further stated that the termination of his appointment was wrongful, arbitrary, unfair and without any regard for due process, adding that the allegations of recurrent under-performance were unjustified and without any basis.
“Plaintiff further avers that defendants’ wrongful decision to terminate his contract of employment and the reasons assigned for the said termination have not only damaged and/or reduced his prospects of any future employment but also caused him great embarrassment, mental distress and injury to his reputation,” the statement of claim pointed out.
However, Nestle has denied the plaintiff’s assertion in its statement of defence and pointed out that it is untrue that Mr Mahler had assessed Mr Anane’s performance and classified it as “Masters”.
“The defendant avers that in the year 2008, the defendant noticed that the plaintiff's performance was falling below expectation and, as a result, Etienne Benet, the Head of Region of the defendant company, discussed it with the plaintiff,” it said, adding that “the plaintiff’s abysmal performance throughout 2008 is reflected in the Progress and Development Guide of the plaintiff covering the period January to December 2008”.
Nestle further denied the plaintiff’s assertion of racism against Mr Benet, challenged him to prove it and justified the termination of the plaintiff’s contract.
The company further argued that the plaintiff had no cause of action against it and was not entitled to any of the reliefs being sought.