Kenya Union of Commercial, Food and Allied Workers v Meru Central Dairy Co-operative Union Limited [2015] KEELRC 102 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that 'casual' workers with continuous service deserve full Employment Act protections, and employers must have sexual harassment policies.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the grievant was a casual employee and what period she served
She served from 07.07.2008 to 23.11.2012 without a break and her purported casual service converted to service subject to the minimum terms of the Employment Act and the collective agreement terms applicable to permanent staff
The court weighed the conflicting evidence on dates of employment. The respondent's witness confirmed the grievant worked without a break from 7.7.2008 to 23.11.2012 by signing various contracts. Because the job was permanent as available throughout and service was unbroken, section 37(1) converted the casual service, bringing the collective agreement terms applicable to permanent staff into play.
Whether the termination was unfair and what compensation is due
The termination was unfair in substance and procedure; compensation of Kshs.144,000.00 under section 49(1)(c) plus Kshs.12,000.00 in lieu of notice under section 35(1)(c) was awarded
The grievant received neither notice nor a hearing as required by section 41, and the respondent failed to establish a valid reason under section 43. The grievant desired to continue in employment and had suffered wrongly imposed casual service throughout. The court applied the statutory remedies to award twelve months' salary and one month's pay in lieu of notice.
Whether the respondent was liable for the sexual harassment by the supervisor Festus
The respondent failed to issue a sexual harassment policy under section 6(2) and failed to discipline the supervisor, exposing the grievant to persistent sexual harassment amounting to unfair labour practice under Article 41(1) of the Constitution and a violation of her dignity; however no compensation was awarded as the matter was not specifically pleaded
The court found no reason to doubt the grievant's uncontroverted account of sexual harassment by her supervisor. The employer's statutory duty under section 6 to prevent sexual harassment was breached both by failing to issue the policy statement and by failing to discipline Festus. The conduct amounted to unfair labour practice and a dignity violation, but absent specific pleading and submissions, only a declaration and a compliance order issued.
Legal principles established
#- Service without a break on a job permanent as available throughout converts purported casual service to service on the minimum terms and conditions of the Employment Act under section 37(1)
- An employer is obligated under section 6 of the Employment Act, 2007 to take measures to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace, and failure to issue a sexual harassment policy or discipline a harassing supervisor exposes the employer to liability for unfair labour practice
- Termination without notice and hearing under section 41, and where the employer fails to establish the reason for termination under section 43, is unfair in substance and procedure
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the termination of the claimant's employment by the respondent was unfair
- 2.Respondent to pay the claimant Kshs.156,000.00 by 01.01.2016 failing interest at court rates from the date of the suit till full payment
- 3.Respondent to issue the policy statement on sexual harassment as envisaged in section 6 of the Employment Act, 2007 and file the same in court by 01.03.2016, with the matter listed for mention on 11.03.2016 to confirm compliance
- 4.Respondent to pay the claimant's costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 and Article 41(1) of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- RAO v O L & another (Cause E744 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2485 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 2485 (KLR)19 Sept 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Commercial, Food and Allied Workers v Meru Central Dairy Co-operative Union Limited [2015] KEELRC 102 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/102/eng@2015-12-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.