Feb 22, 2017, 11:02 AM
Malamin Jammeh, Human Resources Manager at Sankung Sillah & Sons Company, recently testified on behalf of the company before Magistrate Ngube of the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court.
Sankung Sillah & Sons Company was dragged to the Industrial Tribunal by one Malamin Badjie, who declared in his claim that the termination of his employment by the company was “unlawful”.
The plaintiff, Malamin Badjie, claimed D600,000 damages for the unlawful termination of his employment, interest at the rate of 25 per cent per annum from 4 July 2009, to date of judgement and thereafter at the rate of 4 per cent to date of payment and cost.
The witness, Malamin Jammeh, testified that he works for Sankung Sillah & Sons Company and he is the Human Resources Manager of the company.
He told the tribunal that among his responsibilities, he is to take care of the human resources aspect of the company and the development of the employees among other duties.
He adduced that he knew the plaintiff for the past 15 years since he (the plaintiff) was employed in 1995.
He added that the plaintiff was just employed as a soap cook and he became the industrial plumber of the company, adding that the plaintiff had been turning up for work.
He further stated that the last time the plaintiff came to work was 3 July 2009.
He also testified that the plaintiff was suspended on 3 July 2009 and was to resume work on 29 July 2009. His suspension, he added, was because of persistent absenteeism. The plaintiff was not going to work regularly and never got permission for being absent, he explained further.
He also said that when the plaintiff came to work, he did his industrial plumbing job, without any problem caused him by the company.
He further testified that on 3 July 2009, the plaintiff was called to the Human Resources office to receive a letter.
He narrated that after the plaintiff came, he asked the Human Resources assistant what the letter was about.
He stated that he told the plaintiff that the letter was a suspension letter in respect of his regular absence from work.
He further testified that he told the plaintiff the details of the letter’s content, adding that he asked the plaintiff to sign for it but he refused to receive it after knowing the content of the letter.
“I told him the period of time during which he would be suspended,” the witness told the tribunal.
When the plaintiff refused to accept the letter, said the witness, he told the plaintiff to observe his suspension.
He added that the plaintiff left for his workshop in the workplace.
He said further that after a while, when he asked the security to confirm whether the plaintiff had left the premises, he was told that the plaintiff was sitting at the workshop doing nothing.
“I went to the security to remind the plaintiff to leave the premises because he was on suspension,” the witness testified.
He added that the security escorted the plaintiff out peacefully.
He also told the tribunal that on 4 July 2009, the plaintiff came back to the company to inquire whether he was to work or to be on suspension, adding that the security called him (the witness) and told him about the request of the plaintiff.
“I told the security to tell the plaintiff to come in if he was going to sign for his letter of suspension,” he posited, adding that the plaintiff said he was not there to sign for the letter of suspension but to work.
He revealed further that he told the security to tell the plaintiff to go home and return on 29 July 2009, at the end of his suspension.
He said that was the last time he saw the plaintiff during the suspension period.
The case was then adjourned till 9 August 2011.