Apr 28, 2017, 11:02 AM
The Industrial Tribunal of the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court on 17 November 2011 entered judgement against the defendant, Wasu Gambia Kafo, in the sum of D177, 929.15, and cost of D25, 000 in favour of the plaintiff, Mam Kumba Ndow Ceesay.
The tribunal also awarded 15 per cent interest to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff claim was for D280, 776.05 for wrongful termination of her services by the defendant.
In his judgement, the chairman of the tribunal, Ngube, went through the testimonies adduced by both parties.
He stated that the plaintiff told the tribunal that she worked for the defendant and that she was a nurse, adding that the plaintiff further told the tribunal that when she applied for a leave, her application was turned down whilst working for the defendant.
The tribunal chairman said according to the plaintiff´s testimony she had no hearing before her termination and that she was aware of a disciplinary hearing but she did not attend neither did she send a representative.
Still in his judgment, the chairman stated that the plaintiff mentioned that her duty as a project manager also included supervising in the absence of the director.
He said the plaintiff also told the tribunal that she was discriminated against by the defendant by firing her whilst she was pregnant and she denied in her evidence that she was responsible for implementing camps of the organizations.
The chairman added that the plaintiff denied that she was responsible for finance and for falsifying the contract of employment.
According to the chairman of the tribunal, the first defendant’s witness was one Ismaila Njie, finance manager, adding that he elaborated on the importance of camps and how it was conducted.
He said the defendant’s witness admitted that the plaintiff was responsible for preparation of camps and that payment of allowances was done on two categories.
According to Chairman Ngube, the witness revealed that the students wanted to boycott the camp because their counterparts were paid high allowances than them.
He said that under cross-examination, the witness adduced that the budget prepared by the plaintiff was reversed.
The tribunal chairman adduced that the second defendant’s witness was the director of the NGO, who diluted on the duties of the plaintiff, adding that she adduced that when she came in, she could not evaluate the plaintiff but realised that she was brilliant in the job.
The chairman said the defendant’s witness noted that the plaintiff was to make a trip to the provinces, which she did not and failed to inform the Cuban doctors and the students she supposed to meet with.
He said the witness told the tribunal that she gave the plaintiff a hearing in line with her contract, adducing further that the plaintiff did not inform her on her leave.
He added that the defendant’s witness admitted giving her a warning letter, noting that the plaintiff knew that she did not send the said letter to the British High Commissioner.
The tribunal chairman said the second defendant’s witness revealed that she knew the plaintiff was pregnant at the time of the employment and also said she did not know how the plaintiff’s claim came about.
Further in his judgement, Ngube told the tribunal that the contract of the plaintiff was specific and that the defendant deemed to comply in the termination of the plaintiff´s contract.
This, he went on, was subject to compliance with the labour law.
“The letter of warning and termination alleged reason of incompetence, lack of skills and poor conduct of the plaintiff,” revealed chairman Ngube, adding that it was the duty of the master to prove such allegations.
The second defendant’s witness admitted that the plaintiff was responsible for the failure of the camp exercise, he said, adding that she assessed the plaintiff performance and that she found out that she was arrogant and would not take responsibility
The chairman adduced that the plaintiff noted that the failure of the camp was on financial problem due to failure in providing allowances, corroborated to by the first defendant’s witness.
Chairman Ngube referred the court to exhibit E, the warning letter written to the plaintiff, citing that the last paragraph addresses the plaintiff’s capability was not challenged.
He told the tribunal that the defendant also revealed that at the time of writing the warning letter, she had already made her mind to terminate the plaintiff without giving her opportunity to appraise her performance.
He revealed that from the evidence adduced the tribunal found out that the plaintiff was wrongfully terminated, adding that the reason for the plaintiff´s termination was not supported by evidence.
He consequently ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff D177, 929.15 and cost of D25, 000, as well as interest of 15 per cent.