Mh King Advisor nakubaliana na wewe kwa upande mmoja na upande mwingine sikubaliani na wewe. Kama nimemuelewa Mnyatu ni kwamba hiyo 3 million ni shoti kwa maana ni pesa iliyopotea kwa bahati mbaya akimaanisha hajaichukua yeye kwa maana yakujitwalia ili anufaike. Halafu pia inaonekana kwenye mahojiano anakili kuwa ni kweli na yupo tayari kuwajibika kwa kosa alililofanya. Hivyo basi kwa kuangalia mantiki ya ELRA ukiachilia mbali Section 3 ambayo inazungumzia objective ya sheria yenyewe ni kwamba. Dhumuni kubwa linguine ni kutengeneza harmony katika mahusiano ya kazi kati ya mwajiri na mwajiliwa.
Navyoonelea mimi kama nitapata nafasi ya kuwa mwenyekiti katika kikao hicho cha nidhamu, kitu cha kwanza nitaangalia hiyo barua yake ambayo amejieleza wakati amepewa siku 14. Hapa pia nitaangalia Rule 12 (4) ya GN No 42 In determining whether or not termination is the right sanction, the employer should consider-
(a) the seriousness of the misconduct in the light of the nature of job and the circumstances in which it occurred,
.
(b)the circumstances of the employee such as the employees employment record, legth of service, previous disciplinary record and personal circumstance.
Sababu ya kufanya hivyo ni kwamba, kama nature of job and circumstances in which it occurred is complex in the sense that as human being errors are expected out of it. Hapo naweza kumpa adhabu ambayo itamfaya ajifunze na sio kumfukuza kazi. Mfano kama kazi yake ni Mwasibu ambaye let say transaction anazofanya kwa siku ni zaidi ya hiyo 3 million hapo lazima uwe considerate katika maamuzi. Manake ukiangalia Million 3 alizopoteza kwa miaka 2 ni sawa na kusema kuwa kila mwezi alikua anapoteza 125,000 au kwa siku alikua anapoteza 4,348. Sasa katika mazingira ambayo yapo busy sana hiyo ni pesa ya kawaida kwa mwasibu kupoteza. Ebu mwangalie Bank Teller jinsi ambavyo anahudumia watu kwa siku halafu ukaambiwa amepoteza sh 4,348 to me thats very petty ukiangalia na pressure ya kazi.
Pia kama hana record yoyote mbaya ya utendaji then why nimuhukumu kuwa ni mwizi? So ili kuweze kutengeneza mahusiano mazuri kati ya mwajiri na mwajiliwa kama sheria yenyewe inavyotaka hapo mimi adhabu yangu itakua considerate sana.
Ila pia nitajikita katika guidelines za disciplinary hearing Paragraph 7 ya GN No 42 inasema After hearing the evidence, the chairperson should make a decision based on a balance of probabilities as to whether the employee is guilty of the allegations or not. If the chairperson is undecided, the employee should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Sababu yakumpa benefit of the doubt ni kwamba, hata Mwajiri pia analo kosa manake katika miaka miwili yote iliyopita ilikuaje alikua afanyi auditing. So hapa ukweli ni kwamba naye mwajiri anapaswa kuwajibika kwa namna moja ama ningine.
Dear Learned Sisters and Brothers, this is not a rule but that what I feel when trying to be fair. So mwingine anaweza kuwa na mtazamo tofauti na mimi na akawa yupo sawa kabisa.