The case involving Shyben A. Madi & Sons, who have been dragged to the Kanifing Industrial Tribunal by one Ida Suso-Faye, claiming D9,325,000 for damages, salary, social security and leave up to retirement, continued recently with the cross-examination of the plaintiff by the defendant’s counsel.
The plaintiff claimed among others that on 1 October 2009, she was appointed as an accountant at the defendant’s company, Kanifing Office, adding that her appointment was confirmed on 20 April 2010.
The plaintiff claimed that between September and December 2010, the MVD manager started harassing her frequently as a result of her pregnancy.
The plaintiff stated in her claim that the company approved her maternity leave from 27 December 2010 to 26 June 2011.
Ida Suso-Faye added that during her maternity leave, the defendant pre-meditatively sacked her and her position was advertised in the local newspapers.
Testifying under cross-examination before chairman Jobarteh of the Industrial Tribunal in Kanifing, the plaintiff said she could not remember whether she applied for ten days maternity leave.
She admitted that she could remember writing a letter for a date to go for the leave, when she got a recommendation from the hospital.
She revealed that she was not in the country during the leave.
Asked whether she offered one of the directors of the company that she would assist the company during the maternity leave, she responded in the negative, saying it was the motor vehicle manager who asked her if she could work twice in a week and she told him she could not, and this was in the presence of the senior manager and head of accounts.
She admitted that when she returned from her maternity leave, she was queried by the internal auditor.
When it was put to her by the defendant’s counsel whether it was correct that in June and September 2010, she purchased some items from the defendant, the plaintiff responded in the positive, but did not sure whether it was the exact date.
She further admitted that the auditor brought to her attention of D1, 260 in relation to the items she purchased, adding that the auditor informed her that they did not see any proof of payment.
When it was further put to her whether it was correct that she could not see the auditor’s receipt of payment of D1, 260 in 2010, she said: “Yes, it is true but I asked her to give me time because it was the date I returned to work.”
The plaintiff denied informing anyone that the said payment was deducted from her salary.
When further quizzed whether it was correct that after further queries, she paid D1, 260 in July 2011, the plaintiff denied the claim, noting: “I did not query when I could not find the receipt then I paid again.”
Asked on the close of account, the plaintiff clarified that by virtue of her work, she would always close the accounts by end of the day after having a proper documentation.
When the defendant’s counsel put to her that at the time she tendered her resignation, there was an ongoing investigation at her department, the plaintiff dismissed the claim saying: “I was accused at that time of stealing.”
Hearing continues.
