Plaintiff Ebrima Touray recently ended his testimony under cross-examination by the defendant’s counsel at the Industrial Tribunal in Kanifing.
Mr Touray was testifying against his former employer (MFH-Group Company Limited) seeking the relief of D168,000 for unlawful termination and 25 per cent interest per annum, as well as cost.
Continuing his testimony, the plaintiff admitted he amended the top date of the deposit slip for his personal reconciliation for the debtors’ balance to help him know the date he collected the money.
When quizzed that he was not telling the tribunal the truth about the date he collected the money, the plaintiff replied that he collected the money on 20 November 2010 but he mistakenly wrote 21November, adding that he did not alter dates on the original deposit slip.
After the document was tendered in evidence as an exhibit, the plaintiff adduced that he left the original deposit slip at the account section in their main office in Manjai.
Asked why he did not give the D50,000 to the supervisors the day he collected the money, the plaintiff told the tribunal that he collected the money from Brikama to bring it to their head office at Manjai.
“My aim was not to pay it into the bank,” he added.
When quizzed by the defendant’s lawyer, under cross-examination, why he did not give the money to the supervisors, Mr Touray said: “My Chief Accountant, Yomi, authorised me to go with the money in order to pay the following morning at the head office.”
The plaintiff testified that they had four supervisors at their head office, further stating that each of them had a role.
When the defendant’s counsel queried that he did not give the money to any of the managers because he did not have the money in the office, the plaintiff denied the claim, adding that the chief accountant admitted that he found the money in his drawer.
The plaintiff confirmed to the tribunal that he was suspended from duties. The plaintiff also admitted that he misunderstood the telephone of the Chief Accountant, Yomi, because he taught that he was requesting for a receipt he had already given to him.
Touray further agreed that at the Labour Department, Labour suggested to him to be reinstated.
When it was put to him that the company said his services were terminated because they lost confidence in him, the plaintiff replied in the affirmative, adding: “That was what they wrote in the termination letter.”
He finally denied claims that despite the hearing, the company offered to pay him one month’s notice, as well as his entitlements. “I was only given a termination letter,” he concluded.
The hearing was adjourned till 22 February 2012.
