Jun 27, 2011, 2:06 PM
The case was presided over by chairman Jobarteh with the assistance of Mrs Davies and Mr Cole, his panelists.
Continuing his testimony, Raymond Sarr told the tribunal that Musa Badjie, the plaintiff, had been paid all his terminal benefits stated in his termination letter.
He adduced that the plaintiff had requested for a form for application for benefits from Social Security and Housing Finance Corporation, dated 26 March 2012, adding that the application was made by the plaintiff.
He further testified that after the plaintiff had signed the form as requested by the hotel, it then stamped it.
Mr Sarr said the reason the plaintiff went to Mr Bayo’s home was not personal but was connected to the plaintiff’s work, adding that Mr Bayo was the plaintiff’s supervisor at the Housekeeping Department.
He posited that when the plaintiff was redeployed, his salary was the same, further stating that the plaintiff had received series of warning letters prior to his termination.
He said the plaintiff was given a suspension letter as final warning.
Mr Sarr told the tribunal that the reason the plaintiff was moved from the rooms to the public area was because he used to harass guests, who would always complain about it.
He stated that a guest, who was staying in Room 120, also complained of harassment by the plaintiff.
Mr Sarr posited that because of threats made by the plaintiff, his supervisor could not work with him.
He added that the hotel decided to terminate the service of the plaintiff because of numerous disciplinary issues and also threatening his supervisor’s family, which was tantamount to gross insubordination.
Raymond Sarr said the plaintiff was not dismissed by the hotel but his service was terminated with all his benefits given to him, even though the hotel decided to dismiss him.
He adduced that there was no breach of contract by the hotel, adding that the contract ended by termination.
Garba Cham, who was representing the plaintiff, cross-examined the witness to test the veracity of his testimony.
“Is it correct that the first guest, Julian Buoye, complained about missing money in her room while the plaintiff was the room attendant?” Garba Cham asked.
“It is correct,” said Mr Sarr.
“Was any investigation carried out in this matter?” Garba enquired.
“Yes, there was full investigation and the guest’s allegation was corroborated by Mr Manneh, the plaintiff’s colleague,” responded Mr Sarr.
“Who did the investigation?” Garba wanted to know.
“It was done by the management,” Mr Sarr told the tribunal.
“I am putting it to you that it was the police and the reception that did the investigation,” Garba challenged the witness.
“I am not aware,” Mr Sarr answered.
At this juncture, the case was adjourned for Garba Cham to continue his cross-examination.
Lawyer Anna Njie led Raymond Sarr in his evidence.