CMA ORDERS BANK TO PAY FORMER EMPLOYEE 263M/- COMPENSATION

Mr Sioi Solomon.

The Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (CMA) has ordered Stanbic Bank Tanzania Limited to pay its former Head of Legal and Company Secretary, Mr Sioi Solomon, over 263m/- for illegal termination of employment services.

The commission ruled in favour of the employee after granting his complaint against his employer, who dismissed him for allegedly failing to carry out reasonable instruction for his employer and gross negligence.

The CMA gave the bank 14 days to effect the payments, which include 235,872,000/- as compensation for illegal termination of employment, 20m/- as general damages and 7,938,000/- as pension for four years.

It held that following such termination in the banking sector where diligence of the highest degree is required, it would not be easy for the complainant to be trusted and get another employment from other banks on the same capacity at a monthly pay of 9,828,000/-.

The CMA ruled further that the complainant was punished for offences that were not proved and thus the subsequent termination of his employment was not proper and the procedure leading to such disciplinary action were not followed.

It noted that under Rule 9 (1) and (5) of Government Notice Number 42 of 2007 clearly stipulates that reason for termination of employment must be clearly spelt out and of serious nature to justify such termination.

Mr Solomon was employed by the Bank on November 30, 2009 as Head of Legal and Company Secretary. He was suspended on October 2, 2013 to allow smooth investigations on charges that were preferred against him before being fired on November 30, 2013.

The Bank had alleged that the termination of employment of the complainant was a result of his failure to report suspicious banking transactions to the Financial Intelligence Unit involving a client identified as Enterprise Growth Market Limited.

Instead, it was alleged, the complainant presented a false suspicious report to the Unit involving another client identified as Orio, which showed that a large sum of money involving 899m/- was withdrawn, which was not true as such client had not transacted such amount.

The CMA had been told that the purpose of the report was not based on provision of transactions involving withdrawal of big amount of money, as there were other withdrawals involving 1.2bn/- and 1,830,000,000/- that had been made.

Daily News