THE MANAGEMENT OF LIBERIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION (LTC), Petitioner/Appellant, v. AMOS TYLER and G. RUDOLPH BROWN, Hearing Officer, Ministry of Labour, Respondents/Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE NATIONAL LABOR COURT

Heard: November 7, 1994. Decided: February 16, 1995.

1. All labour actions shall be commenced within seven (7) years of the time the right accrues, otherwise such action shall not be entertained by the Ministry of Labour.

2. The right to relief shall accrue on the day the employee incurs a grievance.

3. The time within which an action shall commence shall, except otherwise provided by law, be computed from the time the right to relief accrues to the time the claim is interposed.” See INA DECREE #. 21.

4. When a right to relief accrues in favor of an employee while still on the job, he must interpose his claim immediately or within the period prescribed by statute, and should not wait until after his services are terminated, as the time within which the action shall commence is not computed from the time his services are terminated, but rather from the time the right to relief accrued.

Appellee, was employed by the Liberia Telecommunication Corporation (LTC) in 1958 as a radio/telephone technician, and was retired in 1992 after 31 years of service, with 50% of his salary as pension. He also received his entitlements representing severance pay and other benefits for which he issued a release in favor of appellant. Subsequently, appellee filed a complaint against the Appellant LTC management claiming 31 years accrued annual leave pay. Appellant LTC moved for dismissal of the claim, contending that the employee should have sought relief at the time his right to relief accrued and not after seven (7) years, citing in support the labour statute of limitation for filing labour actions. The motion was denied by the hearing officer, holding that the statute began to toll at the time of the retirement of the employee. Accordingly, he ordered the case proceeded with on its merits, at the close of which, he awarded the appellee $17, 902.50 as accrued annual leave pay for the 31 years in which he did not take his annual leave. To this ruling, the Management of LTC noted its exceptions and petitioned the National Labor Court for judicial review. From the ruling of the National Labour Court confirming and affirming the decision of the hearing officer, the management of LTC again appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court noted that under the labour law, an employee is entitled to take his vacation pay as the law directs and if he was not notified of the date of his leave by his employer, and he did not take the leave or receive pay therefor, the employee’s right to relief immediately accrues; and not until termination of his services. The time within which the action shall commence, is computed from the time the right to relief accrues to the time the claim is interposed; and not from the time the services of the employee are terminated. It was therefore incumbent upon the appellee/complainant to seek relief when his right to relief first accrued and to do so within seven (7) years, which he did not do. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgement of the National Labor Court.

Osborne K Diggs appeared for appellant. McDonald J. Krakue and Jonathan Williams appeared for the appellee.

MR. JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the court.
As disclosed by the trial records certified to us in this case, the only issue is, the time complainant Amos Tyler was supposed to claim his accrued annual leave pay; was it at the time it accrued in 1958 or at the time his services were terminated, in view of the statute of limitation within which to file a labour action. The Ministry of Labour and the National Labour Court are of the opinion that the right to relief accrues at the termination of the employee’s services, at which time the statute begins to toll.

In this case, Amos Tyler, the appellee, was employed by the Liberia Telecommunication Corporation (LTC) in 1958 as a radio/telephone technician and subsequently assigned at the Executive Mansion serving as telephone transmittal bag man. His last salary was $577.50 per month. He served the Corporation from the time of his employment 1958, until April, 1992, when he was retired with 50% of his salary as pension. On April 8, 1992, according to the record before us, he was paid his entitlements in the sum of $18,823.17 representing severance pay, and/or remuneration and benefits for which he issued a release quoted as follows:

REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA MONTSERRADO COUNTY
RECEIPT/RELEASE “KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: THAT I, THE UNDERSIGNED AMOS TYLER ,DO HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THE SUM OF $18,823.17 REPRESENTING SEVERANCE PAY, AND/OR REMUNERATION AND BENE-FITS IN SETTLEMENT OF THE LIBERIA TELECOMMUNICA-TIONS CORPORATION FULL OBLIGATION TO ME; IN CONSIDERATION FOR WHICH I NOW ISSUE THIS FINAL RELEASE RELEASING THE LIBERIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION FROM PRESENT AND FUTURE OBLIGATION, CLAIMS AND LIABILITIES AS RESULT OF THIS SEVERANCE AND/OR TERMINATION OF MY SERVICES. THE UNDERSIGNED AGREES THAT THIS IS A FULL AND FINAL RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS AND SHALL BE BINDING ON THE PARTIES THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND/OR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HAVE AFFIXED MY SIGNATURE THIS 8 th DAY OF APRIL, A.D. 1992” Sgd. s/Amos Tyler WITNESSES: Not legible Not legible Not legible

On July 14, 1992, the appellee/complainant filed a complaint against the appellant/LTC Management claiming 31 years accrued annual leave pay. The Ministry entertained the claim and at the call of the case at the Labour Ministry, the Management of LTC moved for dismissal of the claim, contending that the employee should have sought relief at the time his right to relief accrues and not after seven (7) years, citing in support; the labour statute of limitation for filing labour actions. The motion was denied by the hearing officer, holding that, in his own words: “the tolling of the statute did and must be construed to have begun at the time of the retirement of the employee in the current year, 1992”. He ordered the case proceeded with on its merits. In deciding the case on the merits, the hearing officer awarded the complainant, now appellee, the amount of $17,902.50 as accrued annual leave pay for 31 years in which he did not take his annual leave. The management of LTC excepted to administrative decision of the Ministry and petitioned the courts for judicial review.

Upon judicial review of the administrative decision of the hearing officer, the National Labour Court confirmed and affirmed the decision which awarded the complainant, the amount of $17,902.50 as accrued leave for 31 years. The judge presiding concluded as follows:

“In the instant case, the respondent’s rights to accrued annual leave began 1958. That was not the only time he had right to relief; it continues to accrue up to the end of March when he seized to be an employee. So it is an error to believe the statute will begin to toll at the time the rights to relief first accrued as the petitioner wants this court to believe. The calculation of (31) months of unpaid leave made by the respondent in his letter of complaint was correctly upheld by the hearing officer ….”

The National Labour Court in interpreting the statute of limitation to file labour actions as raised by LTC Management, said, and we quote from the ruling:
“Respondents then argued that since he worked up to end of March, 1992 at which time his leave pay was still accruing, he filed his complaint on July 14, 1992, the statute of limitation cannot be applied, because from April, 1992 to July 14, 1992 is not more than seven (7) years. In the mind of the court, this is the correct interpretation of the statute. Once the employee is working without receiving his leave pay, it will continue to accrue. The statute will begin to toll at the time he seizes to be an employee when the right to relief will no more be accruing”. It is from this ruling that the Management of LTC has appealed to this court for final determination.

In order to determine this issue of seven (7) years statute of limitation during which time to commence a labour action, we must take a look at the statute itself and find the reason thereto coupled with the legislative intent, to be able to settle the issue once and for all.

The statute reads: “All labour actions shall be commenced within seven (7) years of the time the right accrues, otherwise such action shall not be entertained by the Ministry of Labour.

The right to relief shall accrue on the day the employee incurs a grievance. The time within which an action shall commence shall, except otherwise provided by law, be computed from the time the right accrues to the time the claim is interposed.” See INA DECREE # 21.

There is no ambiguity at all in this statute to warrant any extensive discussion in arriving at an unerring conclusion. It is with much disappointment however, that the judge presiding over the National Labour Court, a court of law, would interpret the above quoted statute in the layman’s point of view. The interpretation of this labour statute by the Labour Court Judge and the Ministry of Labour, brings to mind what the statute of limitation on the commencement of labour actions will achieve if the right to relief accrues only after the employee’s services are terminated and not at the time the right accrues. We wonder also whether a retired or dismissed employee will still be entitled to any leave if the tolling of the statute must be construed to have begun at the time of the retirement of the employee. However, let us examine the reason why this law was enacted. Immediately following the military takeover in 1980, the majority of the Liberian masses, the employed and the unemployed, were wrongly led to believe that a government of men was better than a government of law, feeling that the rule of law was too slow a process as compared to the method of trial and determination, which was adopted in all matters brought before these military personnel who were in authority. These included those who hijacked judicial functions and assumed the role of judges and administrators throughout the country to hear and determine matters of civil and criminal nature as well as labour disputes. This state of affairs during the early 80’s encouraged some Liberians, whose services had been terminated with their employers as far back as the Tubman administration, to come up with claims such as accrued annual leave pay, rest period, overtime, severance pay, bonus-es, etc. which they claimed they did not receive at the time of termination. Such claims through the court system as well as through the Capital Building had reached such an alarming and embarrassing situation that the Government of Liberia had to take some measures to protect investors and the economy of the state. The Interim Legislative Assembly (ILA) took the necessary steps not to allow such a situation to pass over from the military regime to the democratic civilian rule which was expected to come into being in 1986, by passing into law, Decree # 21 amending the Judiciary Law to establish a National Labour Court. We cannot therefore bring ourselves to agree with the National Labour Court that although the right of the employee accrued 31 years ago, but the time within which to interpose the Claim was at the time of the termination of his services. The Ministry of Labour in the application of this statute of limitation should not have entertained the action on its own motion without motion by the defendant/corporation.

It is a known fact to every employee and to the appellee in this case, that under the labour law, he was entitled to take his vacation pay as the law directs. If he was not notified of the date of his leave by his employer, and he did not take the leave or receive pay therefor, the employee’s right to relief immediately accrues; and not until termination of his services. Our Labour Law is not even silent on grievance procedure at the workplace. Labor Practices Law, Lib. Code 18A:21 provides for conciliation of grievance. An employee who has worked for his employer for more than five (5) years, as the appellee in the instant case, and could not be notified to take his annual leave to which he is entitled, or if he worked instead, without pay, the employee has the right to take his case to the grievance committee duly established at the workplace or to a labour inspector. Id. 18A:21, §(202)

It was therefore incumbent upon the appellee/complainant to seek relief when his right to relief first accrued and to do so within seven (7) years. The statute quoted herein above commands that all labour actions shall commence within seven (7) years of the time the rights accrues, otherwise such action shall not be entertained by the Ministry of Labour. There is no evidence of relinquishment shown in this case. The question of relinquishment which, under the labour statute must be agreed upon by the employee and the employer in writing, is out of question as there is no evidence to that effect. Id., § 902, Relinquishment of right to leave, pp.281. The time within which the action shall commence, is computed from the time the rights to relief accrues to the time the claim is interposed; and not from the time the services of the employee is terminated.

In view of the law cited and the statute of limitation as quoted herein above, it is our considered opinion that the judgment of the National Labour Court be, and the same is hereby reversed. Costs disallowed. And it is so hereby ordered.

Judgement reversed.