#Article (Archive)

Plaintiff testifies in D4M claim

Feb 3, 2012, 2:42 PM | Article By: Yusuf Ceesay

Plaintiff Alieu Nyang and three others, who slammed their former employer (Hotel Management Training and Kololi Beach Hotel) a law suit of over D4M claim, on 30 January 2012 testified before the Industrial Tribunal.

The plaintiffs claimed D4,371,826 for unfair dismissal from services rendered to the defendant, and damages for breach of contract.

In his testimony, Alieu Nyang told the tribunal that he was employed in 1995 as a security and rose to different ranks until he became the duty manager.

Asked by the tribunal how he became a duty manager, the witness mentioned several positions he underwent at the hotel.

He told the tribunal that in 1999 Mr Nicola Williams, Residence Director, recommended him from security manager to be the store manager, adding that in the same year, he was promoted to acting-duty manager.

“As an acting-duty manager, my role was to supervise the security and staff of the hotel,” he added.

According to the plaintiff, in January 2001, he was made procurement and purchasing officer.

The procurement and purchasing documents were tendered and admitted in evidence.

“In April 2004, when I was transferred back to the store, I was still serving as the duty manager,” he told the tribunal.

 Mr Nyang testified that on 24 November 2007, he was deployed to manage the pool and beach; a document of which was also tendered in court.

“On 11th February 2009, I was finally returned back as a duty manager,” he said.

Continuing his testimony, the plaintiff told the tribunal that on 16 June 2011, whilst he was on his annual leave in the provinces, he received a call from the personnel manager, Haddy Jeng, asking him to report to the hotel.

“Upon my return to the hotel, I was given a letter of redundancy,” the witness said, admitting he was given two months’ salary, which he rejected and told the personnel manager: “It was not fair since I have been working here for a while now.”

Two days later, he continued, the matter was reported to the Office of President where they all made statements, adding that the General Manager was also invited.

He told the tribunal that when the general manager was reminded of the case, he adduced that they made their homework wrong; instead they should have paid them six months’  salary.

He adduced that they were called to a meeting by the management and during the meeting the director admitted to them that they should pay them six months’ salary as advised by their lawyer.

“When I asked the director about our services, he replied that he had been paying our social security,” said the plaintiff, adding that when the director was reminded of the Labour Law of first-in last-out, the director revealed that he did not care, and they could go anywhere they wanted.

“We dragged the defendant to the tribunal to make claim for unfair dismissal, damages for breach of contract, as well as for compensation,” he explained.