He also adopted his written statement dated 27 th May, 2019 as his evidence in chief. RAYMOND NZIOKA, the respondent’s Human Resource Manager testified as Rw1. Further, he contended that he was not refunded kshs.2400 for uniforms despite having surrendered the same to the Respondent and dismissed the Clearance Form serial number 8005 as inaccurate.ħ. He maintained that he was entitled to payment of house allowance backdated to 2001 and salary for 14 days worked in July 2014 contending that his payslip for that month was not accurate as the same provides for payment for more days than the 14 days worked. He confirmed that the Respondent made deductions for NSSF payments as indicated in his payslips. He also admitted that he made a written an apology for the said misconduct but thereafter he was served with a letter of summary dismissal on ground that he reported to work while intoxicated.Ħ. He further admitted that he took alcohol on but denied that he was intoxicated while he was on duty. On cross examination he admitted that he received various warning letters from the respondent during his employment. He, therefore prayed for the reliefs sought in his Claim.ĥ. Further, he contended that he was not served with any prior notice or taken through any disciplinary hearing before the dismissal. He denied the alleged misconduct and contended that no test was carried out to prove that he had reported to work while intoxicated. In brief, his case is that his employment was unlawfully and unfairly terminated by the respondent on false allegation that he reported to work while intoxicated. The Claimant testified as Cw1 and basically adopted his written statement dated his evidence in chief. The matter proceeded for hearing on when both parties tendered evidence and thereafter filed written submissions.Ĥ. 1,380/- for failing to hand over the following company property after the separation: -ģ. On the other hand, she averred that she is entitled to surcharge the Claimant Kshs. She further averred that the claimant’s misconduct was habitual and she had severally served him with warning letters but he did not reform. However, she denied that she unlawfully terminated the claimant’s employment and averred that the termination was lawful and procedural because he reported to work while intoxicated. The Respondent filed Memorandum of Response and Counter Claim on 28 th May, 2019 admitting that she engaged the Claimant as a security guard since 2001. Certificate of Service in accordance with Section 51 of the Employment Act, 2007.Ģ. Unpaid overtime of 4 hours each day for each year of service for 13 years Kshs. ![]() Service pay at 15 % of each year of service completed (2001 – 2014) Payment of the Claimant’s terminal dues comprising of the following: He, therefore prayed for the following reliefs:Ī. The Claimant brought this Claim on 27 th August, 2015 alleging that he was employed by the respondent as a Security Guard from 2001 to when his employment was wrongfully and unlawfully terminated by the respondent. ![]() IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURTĭANIEL MWANZAU NZIOKA.CLAIMANTīRINKS SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED.RESPONDENTġ.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |