CMED group accountant reinstated

collection.
Government auditors and reports by Loss Control and Internal Audit revealed that the company had been defrauded of US$44 700 due to under receipting.
It was common cause that a named clerk also used secret receipt books and stole the money.
Mr Nyamande was charged as the clerk was allegedly under his supervision as he was the section head responsible for revenue collection.
He was arraigned before a hearing, found guilty and dismissed.
The dismissal was upheld by CMED’s Appeals Committee, and Mr Nyamande then appealed to the Labour Court.
He argued that the committee erred by holding a hearing without availing the requested documents by him.
Mr Nyamande further argued that the committee misdirected itself by leading CMED and dismissing him without being given the chance to be cross-examined.
He submitted that the witness failed to particularise the alleged negligence of duty.
Labour Court president Mr Godfrey Musariri, noted that the money was stolen in cash and an organogram of the Finance Division was filed on record.
The assistant accountant who in turn was supervised by the head office accountant supervised the thieving clerk.
Mr Musariri said: “In other words, there were two bosses over the clerk’s head before reaching Mr Nyamande.
“The heart of CMED’s case is that Mr Nyamande as section head was answerable for the theft by the clerk and I find this argument rather tenuous.”
He pointed out that when stretched to its logical conclusion, the CMED chief executive officer was also responsible for the theft since he sits on top of the hierarchy and that was simply absurd.
Mr Musariri said someone along the hierarchy was responsible and the first person to account naturally was the clerk.
“He is followed by his immediate supervisor, who is the person employed to check the conduct of the clerk,” said Mr Musariri.
“In this case, Mr Nyamande as group accountant could not come in (unless) if it could be proved that some deficit in his conduct caused the theft.”
He said it was apparent that the board mechanically equated guilt with dismissal.
The charge may have been a dismissible one but it did not follow that it warranted dismissal in all instances.
Mr Musariri ordered CMED to reinstate Mr Nyamande without loss of salary and benefits, or pay him damages for loss of employment.