Raymond
Sarr, Human Resources Manager at Ocean Bay Hotel, was on 22 October 2013
cross-examined by Garba Cham, who was representing Musa Badjie, who sued the
hotel at the Kanifing Industrial Tribunal for wrongful termination.
The case was presided over by Chairman Jobarteh, who was assisted by Mrs Davies and Mr Cole as panelists.
Lawyer Anna Njie represented the hotel.
Under cross-examination, Garba Cham asked Raymond Sarr: “Management investigated the case of Julian Bouye. Is it correct?”
“Yes,” Raymond Sarr answered.
“What was the outcome of management’s investigation?” Garba asked.
“A warning letter was issued to the plaintiff,” said Mr Sarr.
“I put it to you that it is the police and the Reception Manager who did the investigation and found that the plaintiff was innocent of the case,” Garba challenged Mr Sarr.
“It is not correct,” said Mr Sarr.
“Is it management or the police that conducted the investigation?” Garba Cham enquired.
“Both management and the police investigated theft cases,” Mr Sarr replied.
“Is it correct that due to the case, the plaintiff was redeployed to the public area?” Garba asked.
“Not actually. The plaintiff has surfaced in several disciplinary issues including the theft case,” Mr Sarr told the tribunal.
“Which year was the plaintiff redeployed?” Garba questioned.
“I don’t know,” said Mr Sarr.
“What was the duration the plaintiff should serve at the public area as punishment?” Garba wanted to know.
“Six months, and because he did not fulfill his conduct, management sanctioned him to remain in the public area,” Mr Sarr said.
“Is it correct that the General Manager asked the plaintiff to go with Mr Bayo to the Human Resources Manager to finish the problem or punishment and take the plaintiff back to his normal position?” Garba enquired.
“It is not correct. The plaintiff refused to accept the split shift and to sign to receive his annual leave letter,” Mr Sarr answered.
“I am putting it to you that your statement is wrong because the Human Resources Manager requested the public area supervisor to write to the General Manager about the plaintiff’s conduct before he was redeployed,” Garba challenged Mr Sarr.
“It is not correct,” said Mr Sarr.
At this juncture, a letter was shown to Mr Sarr by Garba.
“Do you know Kebba Trawally?” asked Garba.
“Yes. Kebba Trawally is the public area supervisor and he is the one who wrote the letter addressed to the Human Resources Manager,” Mr Sarr told the tribunal.
“I put it to you that failure to put the plaintiff back to his normal position as room attendant after serving six months’ punishment, is a breach of agreement and breach of trust,” Garba said to the witness.
“Management reserves the right to evaluate the plaintiff for the period and if he is found to be non-compliant, we extend the punishment,” Mr Sarr stated.
“Is it correct that the manager was informed in writing by the plaintiff to pay his salary only?” asked Garba.
“I am not aware of that,” Mr Sarr answered.
“Is it correct that after the hearing meeting, the plaintiff was suspended for two months without salary and without being paid?” enquired Garba.
“I don’t know,” Mr Sarr told the tribunal.
At this juncture, the case was adjourned till 4 November 2013, for continuation of cross-examination.
