#Article (Archive)

Plaintiff continues testimony

Jan 9, 2012, 12:22 PM | Article By: Yusuf Ceesay

A plaintiff Ebrima Touray, who has dragged the MFH Group Company to the Industrial Tribunal, recently continued his testimony.

Touray’s claim against his former employer was, among other things, wrongful termination of his services by the defendant.

Continuing his testimony, he told the tribunal that he attended a disciplinary hearing and that he came with a representative, adding that his representative could not attend the hearing due to the rescheduled of time.

Asked whether the defendant told him about the importance of having a representative, the plaintiff replied in the negative.

“The defendant gave me an opportunity to explain myself about a transaction that led to the disciplinary hearing,” the plaintiff told the tribunal.

Mr Touray further testified that the defendant did not explain to him why his services should not be terminated.

When quizzed by the defendant’s counsel whether the managing director was present at the meeting, the plaintiff responded in the negative, saying it was after the hearing that the managing director called him on account of the money.

According to him, the managing director instructed him to resign, stating that the MD further told him that he did not trust him.

 “I insisted and the managing director told me that he did not want anything wrong,” the witness posited.

The plaintiff further testified that the managing director walked into the administration office and instructed him to write a suspension letter.

“I received a suspension letter of two weeks,” he told the tribunal.

Still testifying, the plaintiff indicated that he did not receive his terminal benefits after his termination letter was issued to him.

“Prior to this incident, I have never received any warning letter of bad conduct, suspension among others,” he said.

Testifying further, the plaintiff adduced that he was also getting his periodical promotion like any other employee, adding that from the beginning all was well between him and the company until he fell out with the entity.

Under cross-examination, he said that over four years he was working in the account section of the company, adding that he was familiar with the procedure of his job.

Asked by the defendant’s counsel if it was necessary that part of his procedures was to keep cheques, the plaintiff replied that after payment of cheques, the deposits cheques were kept with the financial manager.

He explained further that they were also keeping the slips of cheques and cash were handed over to the financial manager whenever he came around.

He added that they kept photocopies of deposit slips and gave the originals to the financial manager.

Hearing was set to continue on 23 January 2011.