Bakery, Confectionary, Food Manufacturing & Allied Workers Union v The Wrigleys Co. (E.A) Limited [2016] KEELRC 1231 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Applicable law where dismissal preceded the Employment Act, 2007
The repealed Employment Act, Cap 226 governed the dismissal; the 2007 Act applies only to filing timelines and does not apply retroactively.
The dismissal occurred on 16th June 2006, before the Employment Act, 2007 came into force. The repealed Act required only adherence to contract terms or notice/pay in lieu, with no right to a hearing or reasons. The Trade Disputes Act allowed referral to the court; since the referral occurred after the 2007 Act commenced, the claimant could only benefit from the time within which to file, not from the substantive provisions of the new Act.
Whether the summary dismissal of the Grievants was wrongful
The dismissal was justified: the Respondent had reasonable and sufficient grounds to suspect fictitious medical reimbursement claims, a criminal offence against the employer under clause 6(g) of the CBA and section 17 of the repealed Act.
Investigations established that the receipts and medical documents presented for reimbursement of family members' treatment at Digore Medical Clinic were fictitious: the clinic denied issuing them, denied charging consultation fees and had no record of the alleged staff or patients. Show cause letters were issued and responses considered unsatisfactory. The law then required only reasonable suspicion; the investigator and conciliator also confirmed the termination, and the court could not fault those findings.
Whether any remedies were due
No remedies were due: reinstatement did not arise and all terminal dues had been paid and were uncontested.
Since termination was found lawful, reinstatement could not issue. The Respondent paid the Grievants wages in lieu of notice, for days worked and accrued leave. These dues were not contested, and the court found nothing else arose from the claim.
Legal principles established
#- Where a dismissal occurs before the Employment Act, 2007 came into force, the repealed Employment Act (Cap 226) applies and the 2007 Act does not act retroactively; the Claimant only benefits from the time limits for filing the claim.
- Under section 17 of the repealed Employment Act, an employer could summarily dismiss an employee on reasonable and sufficient grounds of suspicion that the employee committed a criminal offence against the employer or its property, without a hearing or reasons.
Court orders
#- 1.The entire claim is dismissed for lack of merit
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference of a trade dispute to the Court by the Minister under the Trade Disputes Act (now repealed)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bakery, Confectionary, Food Manufacturing & Allied Workers Union v The Wrigleys Co. (E.A) Limited [2016] KEELRC 1231 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Cause No. 29 of 2009 (memorandum of claim filed 29th July 2009). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/1231/eng@2016-03-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.