The ongoing law suit against Uncle Sam Security Company on 5 December 2011 proceeded at the Industrial Tribunal with the plaintiff continuing his testimony under cross-examination.
Modou Fatty, the plaintiff, sued the defendant, Uncle Sam Security Company, for his claim for annual leave and wrongful termination.
Testifying under cross-examination, the plaintiff told the court that he was employed by the defendant’s company, as security guard and that he had several promotions and held various positions with the company such as supervisor, operational officer, revenue manager and operational commander.
Asked by the defendant’s counsel as to whether exhibit A, letter of appointment, embodies all terms of employment, the plaintiff responded in the affirmative, saying Sam’s Online is one of the businesses run by the defendant.
Quizzed whether exhibit A, employment letter, did not provide for any annual leave entitlement, in reply the plaintiff said the letter did not make such provisions.
He added that apart from exhibit A, he had other employment agreements between him and the defendant which he had not yet tendered as an exhibit before the tribunal.
Asked by the defendant’s counsel, if the plaintiff also had a collective agreement between him and the defendant with regard to an annual leave, the plaintiff said he expected that to be covered by his employment letter.
At that juncture, the defendant’s counsel asked the plaintiff to read exhibit A if the aforesaid agreements were stated in the employment letter, but the plaintiff admitted that they were not stated in the said exhibit.
He went further to reveal that he was employed as a security guard and that he had been promoted several times and had occupied positions at the defendant’s company under directions from the defendant.
When told that the defendant did transfer him (plaintiff) to another arm of his business by a letter received on 24 April 2011, the plaintiff admitted, saying: “I refused to accept the letter of transfer because exhibit A, employment letter, has nothing to do with other companies.”
At that juncture, the defendant’s counsel put it to the plaintiff that Sam Online is not another company, but the plaintiff said that it had nothing to do with his company.
The plaintiff further told the tribunal that he had also served in different positions, such as public relations officer (PRO), inspector and head of communications desk, which were not accompanied with letters.
However, the plaintiff admitted that apart from being employed as security guard, none of the positions he had were indicated in his employment letter.
The plaintiff adduced that there was no exhibit that stated that he was entitled to a vehicle, adding that the vehicle was not an entitlement but rather a privilege accorded him.
The plaintiff further admitted that he was assigned to
He denied he came up with that idea because he was angry after the defendant’s general manager refused him using one of the vehicles, adding that prior to that he had been using different motorbikes at the defendant’s company.
The tribunal, after this evidence, adjourned the hearing till 16 December 2011.
