USTC v Sackie [2004] LRSC 21; 42 LLR 243 (2004) (17 August 2004)
UNITED STATES TRADING COMPANY, Defendant/Appellant, v. J. ALFRED SACKIE, et al., Complainants/Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE NATIONAL LABOUR COURT, MONTSERRADO COUNTY.
Heard: May 4, 2004. Decided: August 17, 2004.
- All evidence must be relevant to the issue; that is, it must have the tendency to establish the truth or falsehood of the allegation or denials of the parties or it must relate to the extent of the damages.
- It is the duty of the employer desiring to declare any employee redundant to inform the Ministry of Labour in order for consultations to be held on the subject with the employer and the union concerned, or the employee.
- Redundancy is the voluntary loss of employment and business through no fault of either the employer or employee.
- The policy of the government is that an employee who is declared redundant is not to be replaced by another person to perform the same functions; rather, the employer should cease the functions relating to the position.
- An employee who has been declared redundant and another person engaged to perform the same functions has the right to file an action of illegal redundancy to obtain compensation for wrongful dismissal.
- Employees who are within five years of retirement and who are declared redundant are entitled to compensation for wrongful dismissal.
- Where wrongful dismissal is alleged, the court has the power to order reinstatement, but may order payment of reasonable compensation to the aggrieved employee in lieu of reinstatement.
- An employer who has been found liable for wrongful dismissal has the right of election to reinstate the employee or pay such compensation.
The appellant and appellees appealed from the ruling of the National Labour Court which affirmed parts of the ruling of the hearing officer of the Ministry of Labour and reversed other parts of said ruling. The appellees, employees of the appellant, were declared redundant by the appellant and paid off because of the unsafe condition of the area due to the intensification of the Liberian civil conflict which had necessitated the temporary closure of the appellant’s facilities and ceasing of its business activities. At the time the appellees were declared redundant, the appellant had indicated to the appellees that they would be re-employed as soon as conditions returned to normal. However, when things returned to normal, new persons were engaged by the appellant rather than the redundant employees.
After hearing of the complaint filed by the appellees with the Ministry of Labour, the hearing officer ruled that the appellant was liable for wrongful dismissal and ordered it to pay to the appellees L$2,001,756.01 and US$3,201.25. The hearing officer also ruled that the letter declaring the former employees redundant was in violation of Regulation 8 of the Ministry of Labour since a majority of the employees had obtained retirement and pension status.
The National Labour Court, before which a petition for judicial review was filed for review of the hearing officer’s decision, affirmed parts of the hearing officer’s ruling and reversed other parts. In particular, it held that the hearing officer’s determination that the redundancy was tantamount to illegal dismissal and that the award made to the appellees was error because there was insufficient evidence to support their claim. Both parties, not being satisfied with the ruling of the National Labour Court announced an appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court affirmed the portion of the lower court’s ruling holding that the appellant’s failure to comply with Section 1(a) of Regulation 8 of the Ministry of Labour, requiring employers to inform and consult with the Ministry of Labour plans to declare any employee redundant, constituted a violation which rendered an employer liable to pay an employee one month’s salary in lieu of notice. But, the Court rejected the lower courts ruling that the appellees be paid for the month of July when they were declared redundant, holding instead that the employees were entitled to only two days pay, the period they had actually worked.
The Court, however, reversed the National Labour Court’s ruling denying the appellees compensation for illegal dismissal, noting that the employment by the appellant of new workers instead of the redundant appellees when it resumed its business activities was tantamount to illegal redundancy and thus wrongful dismissal. The Supreme Court, in reversing the ruling of the lower court judge on this issue, emphasized that the policy of the Government was that an employee declared redundant is not to be replaced with a new person to perform the same functions performed by the redundant employee. The Court held that in such a case the affected employees are considered to have been wrongfully dismissed and therefore entitled to reinstatement or compensation in lieu of reinstatement as provided for under the Labour Law.
J. Johnny Momoh and G. Moses Paegar of Sherman & Sherman Law Firm appeared for the defendant/appellant. Yamie Gbeisay, Sr. of Tiala Law Associates and Othello Pay-man of Kamp and Associates appeared for the complainants/ appellants.
MR. JUSTICE CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of the Court.
The records in this case reveal that complainants/ appellees, J. Alfred Sackie et al., are former employees of defendant/appellant, United States Trading Company (USTC). While they were in the employ of the defendant/appellant, the erstwhile National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL) launched an attack on December 24, 1989 to remove from power the Government led by the late President Samuel K. Doe.
The employees alleged that due to the intensification of the civil war and while the rebel forces were approaching the City of Monrovia, they requested the management to close down operations in order for them to find some area for their safety. But this request was rejected by the General Manager of the United States Trading Company (USTC), even though the management had granted emergency leave to all of its foreign staff, thereby allowing them to leave Liberia due to the same civil war.
The appellees further alleged that the Liberian employees were assured by the General Manager that the civil war would not reach Monrovia and therefore nothing would happen to them. The General Manager also warned that if any employee failed to report to work within four days, such employee should consider himself or herself to have resigned his or her post. As a result of the management’s assurances and the fear of being dismissed, complainants/ appellants continued to work.
According to the records, the rebel forces took over Paynesville City including the premises of the defendant/ appellant on Monday, July 2, 1990, while the complainants/ appellees were at work. They (the employees) had to remain on the premises of defendant/appellant from July 2, 1990 to July 19, 1990, while it was under the control of the rebel forces. Subsequently, they were ordered by the rebels to go to the Fendall Campus of the University of Liberia. They alleged that while on their way to Fendall, some of their colleagues were labeled as Krahns and Mandingoes and, as a result, were killed by the rebels.
In February 1991, complainants/appellees, having heard that the General Manager was visiting the factory, went on the premises to meet with him. They claimed that the General Manager told them that he was in Liberia to reactivate the factory and that he would engage their services for the reactivation process of the factory on a contractual basis. They stated also that as a result, they cleaned-up the factory, set up all the machineries, and undertook production for two weeks.
The appellees further alleged that although they were hoping to restart work and rebuild their lives, unfortunately for them the appellant management addressed letters to each of them dated October 14, 1991, declaring them redundant. In the individual letters, the USTC Management promised them, among other things: That if operations did resume, all employees made redundant by the civil war would be given preference for new employment; and that any employee who was rehired and who worked continuously for three (3) years would be deemed to have earned back his or her previous years of service, which would be accordingly adjusted. No rehired employee would, however, be eligible to retire during the first three (3) years of their new employment.
For the benefit of this opinion, we herewith quote the letter dated October 14, 1991, addressed to each of the redundant employees:
“UNITED STATES TRADING COMPANY
P. O. Box 140, Monrovia, Liberia, West Africa
Authorised Bottler of Coca Cola Products
“October 14, 1991
Dear USTC Employee:
You are aware that as of July 2, 1990, United States Trading Company (USTC) was forced to suspend its business operations due to the civil war. The public turmoil and the resulting disturbances forced both management and employees to flee the area. Regrettably, some people lost their lives and many more were injured. In addition to the human suffering, all people and businesses of Liberia have suffered substantial losses to their properties.
Under the laws of Liberia and most other common law countries (which are sources of Liberian law), the substantial disruption of commercial and other relations, including employer-employee employment or the employee relationships, by war or civil strife, terminates or suspends the employment contract because of the impossibility of either the employer or the employee, or both, under such conditions. The frustration of your employment contract with USTC due to causes which were outside the control of you or management would not have been avoided by exercise of due care by either you or management (sometimes referred to as force majeure). This leaves USTC with the option to either consider your services redundant or suspended as of July 2, 1990 until business operations resume.
Due to the uncertainty as to when USTC will resume full operations, and considering the magnitude of investment and time required, USTC has decided that it would be in the best interest of both management and employees for your employment to be considered terminated due to redundancy. Redundancy compensation will be paid to you according to the laws and regulations of Liberia.
Please be advised that it is the civil war which made you redundant, and this letter is intended to advise you as to how and when your redundancy compensation will be paid. We would have certainly liked to have advised you earlier than now, but we have only recently gained access to our employment records. In keeping with Liberian laws and regulations, USTC is obligated to pay you the aggregate of one month’s pay for each year of service. We acknowledge this obligation, and we will undertake to make your payment as soon as possible. Please contact me for details of the entitlement.
In addition to your redundancy payment and in recognition of the hardship and losses you have suffered, we will also give each employee financial assistance amounting to two and one half (2.5) months of their base wage. Some of you have already received some financial assistance. This current ex gratia assistance payment is inclusive of that already given to those employees.
When and if operations do resume, all employees made redundant by the civil war will be given preference for new employment. Re-employment will be dependent upon the situation at the time and the level of resumed operations.
Any employee rehired and who works continuously for three (3) years will have earned back their previous service and their service date will be adjusted. No rehired employee will be eligible to retire during the first three (3) years of their new employment.
This letter applies to all USTC employees except those eligible to retire or those within three (3) years of retirement as of July 2, 1990. These employees will receive a separate letter offering retirement.
Please accept our sympathies for the difficulties that you have experienced since July 2, 1990. We all hope that our lives will soon return to normal.
Sincerely,
A. Y. Telowoda
Personnel Manager”
Following the receipt of the above quoted letter, redundancy payments were made by the defendant/appellant to the complainants/appellees pursuant to the letter of October 14, 1991. Accordingly, defendant/appellant started operations in 1991. However, contrary to the promise made in the letter of October 14, 1991, it employed new employees in some of the positions previously held by the redundant employees. Upon hearing about the new employment, complainants/ appellees allegedly approached management through the personnel manager who informed them that he was not responsible for the new employment, but rather that it was the Re-employment Committee set-up by the management. Thus, on June 16, 1992, complainants/appellees filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labour against the defendant/appellant, alleging illegal redundancy.
The letter of complaint to the Ministry of Labour alleged that the appellant had violated the Labour Practices Law of Liberia in that the letters addressed to each of the redundant employees declaring them redundant provided, among other things, that they would be accorded first preference for re-employment in the event defendant/appellant resumed operations. To the contrary, new persons were hired in their positions without first offering them their jobs.
The hearing officer, Hon. Philip G. Williams, having heard evidence on both sides, made a final ruling to the effect that defendant/appellant was liable for wrongful dismissal and awarded the complainants/appellees Two Million, One Thou-sand, Seven Hundred Fifty-Six Dollars and One Cent Liberian Dollars (L$2,001,756.01) and Three Thousand, Two Hundred One United States Dollars and Twenty Five Cents (US$3,201.25) to Mr. Augustine F. Koliego, one of the former employees.
The hearing officer further ruled that “the letter of October 14, 1991, addressed to each of the employees declaring them redundant, violated Regulation No. 8 of the Ministry of Labour”. The hearing officer further ruled that the majority of the complainants/appellees had obtained retirement and pension status in accordance with Sections 2501 and 2502 of the Labour Laws of Liberia and should therefore be paid sixty (60) months’ salary. The hearing officer ordered: That those employees who have worked for 18 to 19 years be paid 58 months’ salary; that those who had worked for 14 to 15 years be paid 30 months’ salary; that those who had worked for 10 to 13 years be paid 14 months’ salary; and that those who had worked for 1 to 9 years be accorded compensation in accordance with section 9 (a) (i) and (ii) respectively.
To this ruling, the defendant/appellant excepted and announced an appeal to the National Labour Court for review by filing a 46-count petition for judicial review. Complainants/ appellees also filed a 13-count returns, but said returns was stricken for being filed outside of statutory period, thereby confining the judicial review to the petition and the records from the Ministry of Labour.
In the petition for judicial review, defendant/appellant alleged, among other things, that “the hearing officer erred when he ruled that the redundancy of the complainants/ appellees was wrongful dismissal and is in violation of Title 19-A, section 9 (a) (i) and (ii) respectively of the Labour Practices Laws, and that the majority of the complainants/appellees had attained retirement and pension status in accordance with sections 2501 and 2502 of the Labour Practices Laws. Hence, the appellant said, the only issue before the hearing officer was the alleged violation by the defendant/appellant’s of its promise made in the letter of October 14, 1991, addressed to each of the complainants/appellants, that they would be given first preference for re-employment should the appellant resume operations. Moreover, it was contended:
“That the hearing officer also erred when he captioned the case ‘action of wrongful dismissal’ instead of Illegal redundancy; that the hearing officer further erred when he ordered United States Dollars payment to Mr. Augustine F. Koliego when there was no evidence adduced at the trial to support any such claim; that the co-appellee hearing officer erred when he ordered defendant/ appellant to rehire all the 137 complainants/appellees or pay them compensation in that only 64 employees (both staff and non staff) are in the employ of appellant.”
After the arguments on both sides and review of the transcribed records forwarded to the National Labour Court, His Honour Samuel M. Kpanan, judge, National Labour Court, ruled reversing the ruling of the hearing officer in part and modifying and affirming same in part. The judge held that the determination of the hearing officer that the redundancy of the complainants/appellees constituted wrongful dismissal was an error, in that this was not the issue before the hearing officer, but rather the issues was illegal redundancy.
The judge also reversed the award made in favor of Mr. Koliego in the amount of Three Thousand Two Hundred and One Dollar United States Dollars and Twenty-Five Cents (US$3,201.25) on ground that the records had fallen short of any evidence to support the claim. He also modified the hearing officer’s ruling as to the payment of July salary in full by ordering that said payment be pro-rata.
The judge below further found that the defendant/appellant should have given notice to the Ministry of Labour prior to declaring the complainants/appellees redundant. He therefore confirmed the ruling of the hearing officer for one month notice pay to the complainants/appellees. He further ordered the case remanded to the hearing officer to resume jurisdiction in order to determine from the records those complainants/ appellees who were replaced with new employees so that they could be re-instated or be paid, and to carry on the necessary calculations and forward same to the National Labour Court for enforcement.
From this ruling of the National Labour Court, both parties excepted and appealed to this Honourable Court for review of the records in this case and the filed bills of exceptions.
For the benefit of this opinion, we deem it necessary to quote counts 1 and 4 of defendant/appellant’s bill of except-ions and to also quote counts 6 and 7 of complainants/ appellees’ bill of exceptions, which we consider important to the disposition of this matter.
Counts 1 and 4 of defendant/appellant’s bill of exceptions read thus:
“1. That Your Honour erred when Your Honour ruled that appellant USTC should pay the former employees one month’s salary in lieu of notice only because appellant USTC’s letter advising as to the manner and time of payment of redundancy was sent out in October, 1991, when the Ministry of Labour was functioning and that hostilities in the Liberian civil crisis had ceased.”
“4. That your Honour also erred when Your Honour did not acknowledge that it was on July 2, 1990 that the forces of the National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL) seized Paynesville City and the redundancy of the employees occurred on that day even though they were advised of the method and manner of payment in October, 1991, after the cessation of hostilities; and as such the prorata payment for July 1990 should be for only two days of work.”
Counts 6 and 7 of complainants/appellees’ bill of except-ions state:
“6. That Your Honour erred when you refused to consider the evidence relating to United States Dollars due Co-Appellant Koliego.”
“7. That your Honour erred when you refused to apply wrongful dismissal award upon affirming that notice was not given and there were new employments.”
Owing to the facts and circumstances prevailing in this matter, there are four cardinal issues that are to be determined by the Honourable Supreme Court on this appeal. They are as follows:
- Whether or not under the facts and circumstances prevailing in this matter the employment of new employees can be considered as wrongful dismissal of the redundant employees who had previously held the same positions in the company and were explicitly guaranteed first preference for re-employment by defendant/appellant by the letter dated October 14, 1991?
- Whether or not the defendant/appellant violated Regulation No. 8 of the Ministry of Labour which deals with notice of redundancy and is therefore liable to pay complainants/appellees’ one month salary in lieu of notice?
- Whether or not the trial judge erred in ordering the defendant/appellant to pay complainants/appellees for the month of July, 1990, on a pro-rata basis?
- Whether or not there was evidence during the trial before the hearing officer to support co-complainant/appellee Koliego’s claim of payment in United States Dollars which was awarded him by the Ministry of Labour?
In discussing the issues mentioned above, we shall discuss them in the reverse order, beginning with the last issue, which is whether or not there was evidence during the trial before the hearing officer to support co-complainant/co-appellee Koliego’s claim of payment in United States Dollars which was awarded him by the Ministry of Labour?
According to the records in this case, three witnesses testified for and on behalf of the complainants/appellants during the hearing before the hearing officer at the Ministry of Labour. None of the three witnesses said anything about co-complainant/co-appellee Koliego’s salary being paid in United States Dollars.
Our law provides that “all evidences must be relevant to the issue; that is, it must have the tendency to establish the truth or falsehood of the allegation or denials of the parties or it must relate to the extent of the damages”. See Civil Procedure Law, Rev. Code 1: 25.4.
Since the complaint filed with the Ministry of Labour by complainants/appellees against defendant/appellant for illegal
redundancy did not include any claim in favor of Mr. Koliego, the award of US Dollars in his favor has no basis. Hence, count six of the bill of exception of complainants/appellees is hereby denied.
The next issue for our consideration is whether the trial judge erred in ordering the defendant/appellant to pay the complainants/appellees for the month of July 1990 on a pro-rata basis?
The defendant/appellant contended in count four (4) of the bill of exceptions “that Your Honour also erred when Your Honour did not acknowledge that it was on July 2, 1990 that the forces of the National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL) seized Paynesville City and the redundancy of the employees occurred on that day even though they were advised of the method and manner of payment in October 1991, after the cessation of hostilities; and as such the pro-rata payment for July 1990 should be for only two days of work.”
The records before us have revealed that on July 2, 1990, the forces of the National Patriotic Front of Liberia over ran Paynesville, including the premises of defendant/appellant while complainants/appellees were at work; consequently, defendant/appellant’s business ceased operation on that day. Complainants/appellees having worked for two days in the month of July, 1990, it is only fair that they be paid for the two days of work, that is, from July 1 to 2, 1990. Hence, count four of the bill of exception of the defendant/appellant is sustained.
We now come to the next issue, which is whether or not the defendant/appellant violated Regulation No. 8 of the Ministry of Labour which deals with notice of redundancy and is therefore liable to pay complainants/appellees one month salary in lieu of notice?
In the brief filed before this Honourable Court, counsel for defendant/appellant contended that “the factors that led to the cessation of defendant/appellant’s business operation on July 2, 1990, were not economic in nature such as low product demand, rising operating costs, intensive competition, etc. that usually occur in creeping patterns and are leading indicators from which a business entity may be able to glean difficult times ahead and therefore carefully plan its survival strategies to include cost reduction through a combination of redundancy and other expenses. Had that been the case, it would stand up to reason that appellant, having a better appreciation for the deteriorating general economic condition and its firm specific effects, should be expected to serve notice on the prospective redundant employees who are not situated as management and know or control the situation.”
The Liberia civil war, which led to the disruption of all businesses, including the operation of the Government of Liberia at the time, was not a secret. All well-meaning Liberians and foreigners knew that the rebels or the forces of the National Patriotic Front of Liberia were going to reach Monrovia when the rebel forces took over the cities of Buchanan and Tubmanburg respectively.
Consequently, on July 2, 1990, while complainants/ appellees were at work, the rebels overran Paynesville with the premises of defendant/appellant not being an exception, thereby leaving the employees in the hands of the rebels and also proving contrary to the alleged promise made by the general manager that nothing will happen to them. This situation led to the closure of defendant/appellant’s business until October 1991, when defendant/appellant resumed operations which took place after the clearing of the factory, the setting up of machineries, and two weeks production by the employees on a contractual basis.
The hope of these employees to resume work having been raised, the defendant/appellant declared complainants/ appellees redundant through letters dated October 14, 1991, due to the civil war. Prior to the time the letters of redundancy were issued to the employees, the Ministry of Labour had reopened for the transaction of business. Despite the opening of the Ministry of Labour, defendant/appellant proceeded to pay the employees under redundancy without prior notice to the Ministry of Labour, in keeping with Regulation No.8, Section (1) (a), which provides that “it shall be the duty of the employer desiring to declare any employee redundant to inform the Ministry of Labour in order for consultations to be held on the subject with the employer and the union concerned, or the employee.”
The failure of the defendant/appellant to comply with Regulation No.8, Section (1) (a) of the Ministry of Labour, was a violation and therefore this Court says the contention of defendant/appellant in count one of the bill of exceptions is not sustained and the judgment of the National Labour Court Judge affirming the ruling of the hearing officer, holding the defendant/appellant liable to pay the complainants/appellees one month’s salary in lieu of notice is hereby confirmed.
With respect to the last issue, which is, whether or not under the facts and circumstances prevailing in this matter the employment of new employees can be considered as wrongful dismissal of the redundant employees who had previously held the same positions in the company and were explicitly guaranteed first preference of re-employment by the defendant/appellant in its letter dated October 14, 1999. The complainants/appellees’ letter of complaint to the Ministry of Labour alleged illegal redundancy, in that in its letter of October 14, 1991, the defendant/appellant declared the employees redundant and promised them that when defendant/ appellant resumed operations, the employees would be given first preference for re-employment. But to the contrary, the defendant/appellant employed some new persons in the redundant employees’ positions.
Redundancy is “the involuntary loss of employment and business through no fault of either the employer or employee. Where no business, employment ceases to exist… and takes place only where an employer stops or declines doing a given business or part of it.” See The Liberian Labour Law and Labour Policies, Section IX (a), page 109 (Lang, 1985).
The records in this case show that in 1991 the defendant/ appellant resumed operations and, contrary to the promise made to the redundant employees in the letter of October 14, 1991, employed new persons in positions previously held by the redundant employees. This allegation was proven during proceedings before the hearing officer by complainants/ appellees and confirmed in count 38 of defendant/appellant’s petition for judicial review.
It is a policy of the Government that “an employee who is declared redundant is not to be replaced by another person to perform the same functions. It is expected that the employer should cease the functions relating to the position. Otherwise, the ex-employee has the right to file an action of illegal redundancy to obtain compensation for wrongful dismissal.” See The Liberian Labour Law and Labour Policies, Section IX (a), page 110 (Lang, 1985).
The complainants/appellees having alleged illegal redundancy, and same having been proven, defendant/appellant is adjudged liable for illegal redundancy and the complainants/ appellees are therefore entitled to compensation for wrongful dismissal. Those complainants/appellees who were within five (5) years of retirement as of July 2, 1990, are entitled to compensation under wrongful dismissal. See Section 9, wrongful dismissal, Labor Law, Part I, volume IV, Liberian Codes Revised, page 196, which provides: “Where wrongful dismissal is alleged, the (Labour Court) shall have power to order reinstatement, but may order payment of reasonable compensation to the aggrieved employee in lieu of reinstatement. The party against whom the order is made shall have the right of election to re-instate or pay such compensation. In assessing the amount of such compensation, the (Labour Court) shall have regard to:
(a) (i) reasonable expectations in the case of dismissal in a contract of indefinite duration;
(ii) length of service; but in no case shall the amount awarded be more than the aggregate of two years salary or wages of the employee computed on the basis of the average rate of salary received 6 months immediately preceding the dismissal. However, if there are reason-able grounds to effect a determination that the dismissal is to avoid the payment of pension, then the (court) may award compensation of up to but not exceeding the aggregate of 5 years’ salary or wages computed on the basis of the average rate or salary received 6 months immediately preceding the dismissal.”
This is also buttressed by the case National Port Authority (NPA) v. Doupu and the Board of General Appeals, [1988] LRSC 13; 34 LLR 665 (1988), syls. 3, 4, and 5.
Wherefore and in view of all the facts, circumstances and legal citations herein mentioned, we hold that the portion of the ruling of the National Labour Court Judge reversing the ruling of the hearing officer relating to the payment of United States Dollars to Mr. Koliego is confirmed; that the portion of the ruling relating to complainants/appellees being paid for the month of July, 1990 on a pro-rata basis is hereby reversed and the defendant/appellant is ordered to pay the complainants/ appellees for two days’ work for July, 1990; that the trial judge’s ruling awarding one month’s salary in lieu of notice to complainants/appellees is confirmed; and that the ruling of the judge denying compensation for wrongful dismissal is reversed and the defendant/appellant is adjudged liable for illegal redundancy of complainants/appellees and, therefore, complainants/appellees who have been replaced are entitled to reinstatement or compensation for wrongful dismissal. The Clerk of this Court is hereby ordered to send a mandate to the National Labour Court, ordering the judge presiding therein to resume jurisdiction and order the hearing officer to determine how many complainants/appellees were replaced with new employees so that those replaced can be reinstated or be paid in lieu of reinstatement as follows: Those complainants/ appellees who have worked for 15 years and up to 19 years should be paid 24 months; those complainants/appellees who worked for 10 years and up to 14 years should be paid 19 months; those who have worked for 5 years to 9 years should be paid 14 months; those who have worked for one year up to 4 years should be paid 8 months; and those who are within five years of retirement as of July 2, 1990, should be paid the aggregate salary of 5 years each. The hearing officer shall thereafter make the necessary calculations and forward same to the National Labour Court for enforcement. Costs are against the defendant/appellant. And it is hereby so ordered.
Ruling affirmed in part and reversed in part.