Oct 4, 2011, 1:37 PM
Lamin S. Sanneh, ex-employee of St. Peter’s Senior Secondary School, was Monday cross-examined by the defendant’s counsel at the Industrial Tribunal in Kanifing.
The plaintiff dragged St. Peter’s School to the tribunal, claiming for the recovery of D157, 896 being three years, seven months as damages for unlawful termination of his services by the defendant.
Testifying under cross-examination, the plaintiff stated that his salary for the afternoon shift was separate from the salary of the morning shift.
He adduced that he had a contract for the morning shift and that the afternoon shift was a verbal agreement between him and the school principal.
The plaintiff denied that the same contract bound him in the morning was the same with the afternoon shift.
“What were your terms of employment with regard to termination in the afternoon shift?” counsel asked and the plaintiff responded saying it could be terminated by either party at any time because it was just verbal.
“It is not mandatory to teach in the morning and afternoon shift. Someone can disengage from the afternoon shift without notice, but can still maintain his employment status for the morning shift,” said the plaintiff.
When it was put to the plaintiff that he was required to give one month notice before he terminated teaching for the afternoon shift, he replied in the negative, saying the principal requested him to pay a month’s salary.
The plaintiff admitted that he applied to the Ministry of Education through the regional office before 20 January 2012 to be appointed as a government teacher in the afternoon shift.
“I had appointment with the government and I was posted in Region 2 at Kumbo Kerewan Upper Basic School,” the witness told the tribunal.
He further indicated that he applied around the end of June 2011, but did not specify on whether to teach in the morning or afternoon shift.
The plaintiff denied that he resigned for the afternoon shift, but it was not because of exhibit D, stating that he was offered an employment in the afternoon shift.
Counsel put it to the witness that his termination by the defendant was justified because he gave no regard to the students in the afternoon shift and the fear of the principal was that he (the plaintiff) would abandon the morning shift as well.
In response, the plaintiff said: “You cannot terminate my service on assumption. I was terminated because I refused to pay the month’s salary requested from me,” the plaintiff indicated.
Hearing set to continue on 2 July 2012.