Apr 29, 2013, 10:19 AM
Sahar Diab Ghanem, a former employee of Comium, has been taken to the Kanifing Industrial Tribunal by the GSM company.
The plaintiff recently called its first witness to testify on behalf of the company.
Haddy Dandeh Jabbi told the tribunal she was the head of the legal office and human resources department of Comium.
She further testified that the defendant was an employee of the plaintiff, and was hired as a roaming coordinator, stating that the defendant was offered employment and signed a contract dated 13 September 2008.
She said the defendant performed very well her duties after her employment, adding that the defendant ran the roaming office in a disciplined manner, and was confirmed after a probationary period.
The witness testified that the defendant was employed after she was given a contract of employment, stating that the defendant was to contact and try to form roaming links between Comium and other international companies.
She added that at the time the defendant was hired, she had no skills as roaming coordinator, stating that it was due to training in-house and after she was sent abroad that the defendant gained experience.
She said this was not the defendant’s first job, adding that the defendant was recommended by her previous employer.
She said the defendant brought her CV to the company and a letter of recommendation from her employer.
The witness told the tribunal that the defendant resigned from her position in writing, dated 29 February 2012, stating that the plaintiff responded to the resignation and accepted it, based on conditions stated in the terms of employment.
Haddy Dandeh-Jabbi said the defendant informed the plaintiff verbally (MD) that she had been offered a job by Africell in their roaming department.
The witness further testified that the Managing Director responded by email dated 23 February 2012.
The defendant sent a reply to the MD dated 14 March 2012 and it was also copied to her and the personnel manager, she said.
Comium is claiming the sum of D96,485 being five months salary less the defendant’s terminal salary due to the plaintiff.
The company also claimed damages for breach of contract, interest at the rate of 18 percent from 29 February 2012, and costs.
The case was adjourned till 31 July 2012.