ABOUT 105 Senior Customs Officers (plaintiffs) have sued the Ghana Revenue Authority (Defendant) at the Accra Fast Track Division of the High Court, for failing to promote them after passing their promotion examinations and interviews in 2014.
A writ of summons filed on their behalf on July 7, 2015 by their solicitors, Albert Adaare of Albert Adaare & Associates, sought the following reliefs from the court.
A declaration that, the plaintiffs, having already passed promotion interviews in accordance with the criteria set by the Ghana Revenue Authority, should be automatically promoted without any further delay.
An order directed at the defendants to immediately put in place, an approved scheme of service covering the entire employees of the Ghana Revenue Authority.
Compensation for the defendant’s economic rights under article 23 of the 1992 constitution.
A compensation for the unjust and unfair treatment of the plaintiffs (workers) in violation of article 23 of the 1992 constitution.
Damages for breach of the collective bargaining agreement.
An order from the court that, the defendant (Ghana Revenue Authority) promotes all the plaintiffs (105 workers) who have still not been promoted even though they passed the 2014 promotion interviews, before carrying out 2015 promotion exercise intended to fill left over vacancies.
Pay interest at the Commercial Bank lending rate from the date of issue of the writ to date of final payment on all monetary awards to the plaintiffs.
The officers, whose rank ranged between Assistant Revenue Officers, (ARO), Revenue Officers (RO), and Senior Revenue Officers (SRO) said the action of Ghana Revenue Authority breached the negotiated Collective Bargaining Agreement reached on their behalf by the Public Services Workers’ Union of the Ghana Trades Union Congress.
The workers said it was only after numerous correspondences, failed promises and raising of false hopes, by the Ghana Revenue Authority, that, they have decided to take court action.
The workers said, the defendants hurriedly and inadvertently issued a notice dated Sunday, June 28, 2015, purporting to say that, vacancies would be filled, and 2015 promotion exercise organised before the end of the year.
The workers avers that, having already passed the 2014 promotion interviews and met the criteria for promotion, they ought not to go through another promotion exercise.
The defendants are yet to file their notice of appearance.