National Union of Water And Sewerage Employees & Lake Victoria North Water Services Board Kakamega-Busia Water Supply [2018] KEELRC 1436 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that dismissing two union officials without a hearing was unfair and anti-union, awarding them over Kshs. 2.7 million each.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the summary dismissal of the Grievants was substantively and procedurally fair
The dismissal was unfair both substantively and procedurally: no disciplinary hearing or opportunity to respond to the charges was afforded, and the charges were not proved.
Section 41 of the Employment Act requires a fair hearing before dismissal and Section 43 requires the employer to prove reasons; under Section 45(2) non-compliance renders dismissal unfair. RW1 admitted she was not at the meeting giving rise to the dismissal. The grievants were never taken through any disciplinary process or asked to respond to the charges. Their evidence that they had permission to attend union hearings was unrebutted, and performance accusations were unsupported by any prior evidence. Past warning letters from 2010-2013 had lapsed under Rule 16 of the General Order.
Whether the dismissal violated the Grievants' freedom of association and rights against unfair labour practices
Yes - the dismissals arose from union activities and violated Articles 36 and 41(2)(c) of the Constitution, Section 46(e) of the Employment Act and Sections 4 and 5 of the Labour Relations Act.
The grievants were registered branch officials of the claimant union and were dismissed for attending the respondent's disciplinary hearings in their capacity as union representatives to protect members' right to be represented. The court found the dismissals arose from undertaking union activities, constituting victimisation for exercise of constitutional freedoms, and contravened statutory protections against anti-union discrimination.
What remedies were available for the unfair and unlawful dismissal
Reinstatement was refused due to lapse of time; terminal dues, notice pay, 2014 bonus and leave allowance, maximum 12 months' compensation and Kshs. 2 million general damages each were awarded.
Although reinstatement would ordinarily have been granted for union officials dismissed without valid reason or procedure, it was unavailable due to lapse of time. Terminal dues including pay in lieu of notice flow from Section 49(1). Maximum compensation under Section 49(4) was justified by the respondent's refusal to avail itself for statutory conciliation, the manner of dismissal and length of service. General damages of Kshs. 2 million each reflected punishment for exercise of constitutional freedoms. Claims for salary to retirement were refused.
Legal principles established
#- Non-compliance with Sections 41 and 43 of the Employment Act renders a dismissal unfair
- Charges not put to an employee for response and not supported by evidence cannot found a valid summary dismissal
- Warning letters lapse after 12 months and two valid warnings plus a disciplinary hearing are required before dismissal
- Dismissing union officials for undertaking union activities violates their constitutional freedom of association
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the summary dismissal of the Grievants was unfair both substantively and procedurally and violated their freedom of association
- 2.Payment to each Grievant of one month's salary in lieu of notice (Kshs. 55,097.00)
- 3.Payment to each Grievant of yearly bonuses for 2014 (Kshs. 19,195.50) and leave allowance (Kshs. 12,799.00)
- 4.Maximum compensation equivalent to 12 months' gross salary (Kshs. 661,164.00) to each Grievant
- 5.General damages of Kshs. 2,000,000 to each Grievant for violation of constitutional freedoms of association and fair labour practices
- 6.Interest on items (i) to (iii) from date of filing suit and on items (iv) and (v) at court rates from date of judgment
- 7.Costs to the claimant union assessed at Kshs. 150,000 to cover reasonable costs and disbursements including witness expenses
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (Employment and labour relations dispute; matter referred under the Labour Relations Act conciliation process)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (4)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Nancy Omolo v Mercy Corps [2021] KEELRC 719 (KLR)[2021] KEELRC 719 (KLR)28 Sept 2021
- Nancy Omolo v Mercy Corps [2021] KEELRC 719 (KLR)[2021] KEELRC 719 (KLR)28 Sept 2021
- Obuya Bagaka v Kenya School of Government [2021] KEELRC 2271 (KLR)[2021] KEELRC 2271 (KLR)26 Jan 2021
- Obuya Bagaka v Kenya School of Government [2021] KEELRC 2271 (KLR)[2021] KEELRC 2271 (KLR)26 Jan 2021
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "National Union of Water And Sewerage Employees & Lake Victoria North Water Services Board Kakamega-Busia Water Supply [2018] KEELRC 1436 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Kisumu ELRC Cause (number not stated in the judgment; referenced matter: Kisumu Industrial Court Case No. 296 of 2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1436/eng@2018-07-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.