#Article (Archive)

M Lodge Proprietor at industrial tribunal

Sep 16, 2011, 1:25 PM | Article By: Adama K. Jallow

Marcel Moldage, the proprietor of Triple M Lodge, was recently dragged to the Industrial Tribunal by one Ousman Bojang, a former employee of the said lodge, for wrongful termination of his service.

In his testimony, Ousman Bojang told the tribunal that he had been working with Triple M Lodge as a manager.

He said he got the job through the ex-wife of the defendant, and got paid D5,000 as monthly salary.

He said he started working with the Lodge in March 2007 and continued to the 2nd of June 2011.

According to Ousman Bojang, his salary was stated on a pay slip, but it did not contain the actual salary.

The plaintiff added that the defendant told him that he would not pay 10% as Social Security contribution, and he was not allowed to sign for D5,000 but instead for D2,000 as his salary.

He added that his work as a manager involved book-keeping, watering flowers and cleaning when the defendant travelled.

He worked from 9 am to 10 pm, six days a week and yet got holidays only for one week in a year.

He said on the 1st of May which was a public holiday, if he did not report to work, he would have been fired by the defendant.

Also on the same day, he had visited his uncle who was hospitalized at the RVTH, but then received a phone call from the defendant that if he did not report to work,  he would be kicked out of the company, which made him not to spend much time at the hospital, so as to keep his job.

In that very phone call, the defendant insulted him on the phone, and asked if he had not known that it was a working day.

He said when he reported for work, he was told that he was paid a salary and, therefore, he should take permission before leaving for any place.

When in fact they had made an agreement that, if he was to go out anytime, he would consult his colleagues, as he was not the only member of staff.

On 25 May, he reminded the defendant that he works in The Gambia, and should be given one month as vacation, but the defendant’s response to him was that he was the senior man, and was entitled to have one month as vacation.

On 1st June, the defendant brought him a new time-table stating that he should work from 9 am to 5 pm daily.

He said he then claimed for his last payment, and the defendant said he did not care if the plaintiff summons him.

From there, he said, he took permission and went to the Labour Department, and the commissioner scheduled a meeting on 13 June.

He said before the meeting ended the defendant said that he was going to talk to his lawyer, adding that the meeting was deferred until 22 June.

After resuming for the meeting, there was no agreement, and it was again deferred to 28 June. Then, he continued, he finally took the matter to court on that very day.

Hearing continues.