Apr 28, 2015, 10:34 AM
Defence counsel Mboto put it to the plaintiff, Mr Drammeh, that he worked for the defendant for one year. The plaintiff responded in the positive.
The plaintiff told the tribunal he had worked somewhere else prior to working for the defendant, adding that he first worked for Coco Ocean.
Under cross-examination, Mr Drammeh posited that he was interviewed by the defendant and answered all the questions.
He said he was asked about how to clean the environment, and that he could not remember all the questions.
Lawyer Mboto put it to the plaintiff that he could not recall the questions because it was not in writing.
The plaintiff responded that the questions were noted down by the defendant.
Asked whether he was given a document containing the questions, he answered in the negative.
Mr Drammeh adduced that he was not given a new employment letter but was given probation of two weeks, and that the defendant promised they would give him an employment letter.
He stated further that he was not given an employment letter and that he did not ask.
The defence counsel put it to him that he did not know the terms of his employment, which was why he did not ask. But the plaintiff said he knew.
When the plaintiff was asked whether he signed when he was paid, he responded in the positive, saying if he saw a copy of the document he signed he would be able to identify it.
When the document was shown to him, he identified it.
The defence counsel applied to tender it, and Garba Cham, who was representing the plaintiff, did not raise any objection.
The said document was admitted by the tribunal for identification purpose.
Muhammed Drammeh confirmed that his salary payments were different. Then the defence counsel put it to him that the variations were as a result of the terms of his employment.
The plaintiff replied that the reason for the variations was because his salary was being deducted every month.
Lawyer Mboto put it to the plaintiff that he was employed as a cleaner but in response he said he was also doing some laundry and worked as a messenger.
Asked whether he presented some credentials when he was employed, he said he gave the defendant a certificate, social security and income tax cards.
He added that he also gave the defendant his qualification certificate from Coco Ocean when he finished his training.
At this juncture, the defence counsel applied to tender the certificate.
Garba Cham did not object to the tendering of the certificate, and it was admitted by the tribunal.
The defence counsel put it to the plaintiff that it was not indicated on the certificate that he was working as a cleaner at Coco Ocean but he said what was on top of the certificate indicated housekeeping, and cleaning is part of housekeeping.
The defence counsel again put it to him that as a housekeeper, he was a domestic servant but he said he did not agree.
Lawyer Mboto put it to him that he was employed as a domestic servant, which was why his salary varied.
“They did not tell me that when I was employed; they promised me a fixed salary and payment of my income tax,” Mr Drammeh told the tribunal.
The case was adjourned till 20 August 2014.