Obuasi — THE NATIONAL Labour Commission (NLC) has ordered AngloGold Ashanti, (AGA) Obuasi Mine, to pay $4, 713,534.18 as gratuities to over 270 workers, who were involuntarily transferred to the Mining and Building Construction Company (MBC), a mining company based in Obuasi, in 2004.

The Commission gave the order in its final ruling, which was signed by its Executive Secretary, Mr. Edward Briku-Boadu, and dated August 20, 2008, after it had carefully examined a petition filed by the said workers, dated April 20, 2007, against the mining giant (AGA). They are to comply with the decision within fourteen days.

The workers petitioned the Commission that in the latter part of 2004, they were drawn to an agreement signed between MBC and Ashanti Gold Company (AGC), now AGA, dated January 25, 1984, and as a result were transferred from the administrative management of AGA to MBC.

They further explained that they were transferred, without payment of severance pay, even though by the transfer, they suffered a diminution in their terms and conditions of service.

"We worked for the company without knowledge of any existing agreement between AGC and MBC, and therefore our involuntary transfer to MBC, entitles all of us to be paid gratuities," they added in their petition.

However the Respondent, in its response filed on July 4, 2007, stated that the petitioner's at all material times were not their employees, but employees of MBC, and therefore not entitled to the claims in their petition.

The Respondent further explained that the petitioners had always been aware of the corporate existence and functions of MBC, and that they had always received instructions and directions from MBC.

Respondent noted that Petitioners, being permanent employees of the MBC, were administratively managed by the latter, and the cost of such management service charged to MBC, and dismissed the claim by the workers that by their transfer, they suffered a diminution in their terms and conditions of service, in that the provisions of the Variation Agreement, only sought to replace the AGC with the MBC in the administrative management of the Petitioners.

Respondent, in concluding its address to the Commission, stated that the MBC had always existed as a limited liability company, and that the MBC had an agreement with AGC, to manage the petitioners, and that whether such an arrangement changed the character of the Petitioners' status, was a question of corporate law, which the Commission must refer the parties to a court of competent jurisdiction, for effectual determination.

The Commission, however, in its ruling, disagreed with the Respondent, concluding argument saying, "the Commission finds no merit in the argument that the petition raises question of conflict between corporate and labour law, which the Commission has no jurisdiction."