#Article (Archive)

Ocean Bay Hotel civil suit resumes

Dec 14, 2011, 1:28 PM | Article By: Adama K. Jallow

One Omar K. Leigh, plaintiff, recently continued his testimony at the Industrial Tribunal in Kanifing where he tendered some letters which were written to the hotel by the Gambia Workers’ Union, including a reply letter to the union for a proposal that was offered to him for a six months’ salary.

 He testified that he did not accept the proposal, because it was not written directly to him, but it was the union which showed him the proposal letter.

He added that a few days later, they had a meeting at the National Assembly, where they were asked to go to court.

Under cross-examination, the plaintiff said that he was working as a full-time bar-keeper and that he used to rotate in the bars, since there was more than one bar in the hotel. 

He said he served the guests Heineken and beverages, when he was on duty.

The plaintiff further told the tribunal that all the stock in the bar was expected to expire, and that he sometimes checked on how many beverages have been sold on a particular day.

He added that, on that particular day, he did not check this because his partner had already checked before his arrival, which he was satisfied with.

He further said that on that particular day he did not go to the Ocean Clipper, which was on 23 November 2011.

The plaintiff testified that a complaint was raised when a transaction is made before the end of a particular time.

He added that for the Heineken expired, and it was exchanged with a bottle of Julbrew and a change of D35.

“I used to see expired items, even in the kitchen,” he stated, adding that they could not raised a damage form because the guests were angry, and that it was confusing.

When he reported to work the following day, he was called by the Food and Beverages Manager, but he could not still raise a damage form.

He added that two bottles of Heineken were served to the guests, but he served only one bottle to the guest, while the other was served by his counterpart, one Ensa.

When a stock sheet was tendered in court, indicating that there was no bottle of Heineken on that particular day, and which bore his signature, he said that there was still another remaining in the fridge.

The case was then adjourned till 10 January 2012.

Read Other Articles In Article (Archive)