Dec 31, 2008, 5:19 AM
The ongoing civil claim filed against Ocean Bay Hotel by its former employee, Mama Cham Deen, has reached its climax at the Industrial Tribunal with the testimony of the third defendant witness, Liagog Ali Sadi.
In his evidence-in-chief, the witness, Liagog Ali Sadiq, informed the tribunal that he is the pastry chef as the chef of the hotel, adding that he knew the plaintiff, and the reason why she brought the defendant to court.
The pastry chef said that he knew that the plaintiff was dismissed.
“On 22nd June 2011, in the morning, we were on duty in the pastry unit with the plaintiff, Mama,” he told the tribunal.
At the start of work, they brought eggs, sugar and flour to the pastry unit to make cakes, he went on, and that they locked them up in a separate store, and took what they needed with the permission of the head of the unit, adding that Kumba was the head of the pastry unit.
According to her, some days later, he took out eggs and 2 kg of sugar with the knowledge of Kumba, and put it at the pastry unit, after which he left to check the buffet.
After one and a half hour, when he came back, some sugar was missing, he continued, and that he then asked his staff whether they have prepared any food using eggs and sugar, and they responded in the negative.
Still testifying, he adduced that he then reported the matter to the head of the pastry unit, Kumba, further stating that Kumba later called and invited him to her office, announcing that she had found something.
“I went to her office, where I found her with the plaintiff,” the witness told the court, adding he saw a bucket containing sugar and eggs close to the plaintiff’s chair.
The pastry chef further told the tribunal that he does not know what language they were speaking, but saw Kumba in an angry mood, and the plaintiff was just sitting not responding to her.
He stated that the head of the pastry told him that she found the alleged bucket with items in the plaintiff’s locker.
He said he there and then told the plaintiff that, if the matter was taken to the General Manager, the plaintiff would be dismissed.
The witness also testified that the plaintiff looked at Kumba in an apologetic manner, and said: “Sorry, I will not do it again.”
He said they decided later to hand over the matter to the human resources manager.
He noted that the plaintiff was later called into the General Manager’s office, twice for a meeting, which he himself, Kumba, the General Manager, acting general manager, human resource manager and the plaintiff attended.
The witness said that the plaintiff was questioned by the General Manager, and they were witnesses as the matter was reported to the human resources manager.
He further told the court that when Kumba started to explain, the plaintiff became angry towards her saying: “No, I did not do it.”
Under re-examination, the witness said that the plaintiff was on duty on the day the items were missing.
Asked whether staff were allowed to take their food or items in, the witness said unless they take permission from the security staff, who have to record it.
He also told the court that he reported to Kumba that the plaintiff was always late for duty.
Tribunal chairman Ngube at this point adjourned the hearing to 26 October 2011.
The company is facing a claim for wrongful termination of the plaintiff’s services.
Readers would also recall that the plaintiff also indicated in her claim that the reason for her dismissal was because someone accused her of finding some eggs and sugar in her locker, which happened in her absence.