TAILORS & TEXTILES WORKERS UNION V ROSKY INDUSTRIES [2012] KEELRC 208 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled an employer must prove reasons for firing an employee — vague claims about lost production were not enough, and the machinist won over Kshs.134,000.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the grievant's contract of service was unfairly and wrongfully terminated
Yes - the termination took effect immediately without notice, without a hearing, and the alleged 50% production drop was unproven; the low production was attributable to the team/supervisor, not the grievant personally.
The termination letter deemed a 50% production drop between 14th and 17th August 2009 a go-slow strike and terminated services with immediate effect, with no room for defence or appeal. The grievant explained the drop as caused by lack of materials, which the Respondent never contested in pleadings or evidence. RW1 produced no statistical data proving the 50% drop, and the burden of proving valid reasons lay on the employer. As a team member in mass production, she could not bear personal blame. The court also found her dismissal on a demand for higher pay probable.
Whether the grievant was underpaid as a machinist under the General Wages Order 2009
No - the court believed the employer that the factory was for mass production only, so the grievant was a Mass Production Machinist entitled to Kshs.6,948/- plus house allowance of Kshs.1,389/-, totalling Kshs.8,337/- per month.
The job title was contested, with each side giving different interpretations tied to different wage rates. RW1 testified the respondent's factory was only for mass production where no one person completes a garment alone, distinguishing a mass production machinist from a machinist made to measure. The court accepted the employer's explanation, while blaming the employer for creating confusion by issuing an ambiguous job title.
What remedies the grievant is entitled to
Two months' salary in lieu of notice, salary for July 2009 and April 2009, service pay at 15 days per year for 13 years, and 6 months' salary for unfair termination, totalling Kshs.134,503.60, plus costs, interest and a certificate of service; leave, underpayment and 12 months' maximum refused.
The court computed terminal dues under sections 35, 49 and 50 of the Employment Act read with the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement. Service pay was computed at 15 days per year for 13 years of service (Kshs.54,190.50) and compensation for unfair termination at 6 months' salary (Kshs.50,022.00). Leave was refused because the employer proved leave was taken and house allowance paid; underpayment was refused on the job-title finding; the maximum 12 months' compensation was not justified on the facts.
Legal principles established
#- The burden of proving that the reasons for termination were valid and fair lies on the employer, and mere unsubstantiated allegation is not enough proof.
- Termination that takes effect immediately without notice and without giving the employee a hearing is unfair and wrongful.
- The duty of explaining the job title and job description to an employee lies with the employer, and ambiguity in job title is the employer's responsibility.
- Where an employee works as part of a team in mass production, she cannot bear personal blame for low production of the whole team.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment in favour of the grievant for Kshs.134,503.60 plus costs and interest
- 2.The Respondent ordered to issue the grievant with a certificate of service
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and labour relations jurisdiction over a claim for terminal dues for unfair and unlawful termination of employment; Employment Act sections 35, 49 and 50 applied
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "TAILORS & TEXTILES WORKERS UNION V ROSKY INDUSTRIES [2012] KEELRC 208 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2012). Cause No 812 of 2010. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2012/208/eng@2012-11-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.