Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
IndustrialDismissedCause 44 of 2000· [2007] KEIC 1 (KLR)

Bakery, Confectionery, Manufacturing & Allied Workers’ Union (K.) v Wrigley Co. (E.A.) Ltd (Cause 44 of 2000) (Employment and Labour) [2007] KEIC 1 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya
20 April 2007
CCCharles P. ChemmuttutJKJ.M. KilonzoOWO.A. Wafula
4,418 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~18 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Industrial Court confirmed that job grading and promotion decisions belong to management, not employees, unless a collective agreement or law says otherwise.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Minister for Labour referred a trade dispute to the Industrial Court under Section 8 of the Trade Disputes Act, Cap. 234, concerning the alleged arbitrary demotion of two grievants, Macharia Kimuhu and Job Mugesani, employees of the Wrigley Co. (E.A.) Ltd. The Union claimed the first grievant, employed in 1971, had been denied his rightful grading as Charge-Hand (grade 7) since the 1982 collective agreement and was further demoted in 1994, while the second grievant, a Machine Operator in grade 4, was re-graded to grade 2 following a 1994 restructuring of the grading system from twelve grades to six. The Union relied on the Minister's investigator's findings and recommendation that both grievants be reconfirmed with arrears, quantified at Kshs. 850,344 and Kshs. 449,788 respectively, and invoked ILO Convention No. 98. The Company denied any demotion, contending the restructuring was a bona fide job evaluation carried out with the elected Works Committee, that wages and allowances were not prejudicially affected, that the claimed positions were non-existent at the material time, and pleaded laches. The court framed the single question as whether the grievants were arbitrarily demoted or denied promotion by the 1994 grading structure. It held that promotion is a management discretion and not a right, that bona fide job grading is the sole function of management, and that no monetary loss was proved, the Union's calculations resting on non-existent jobs and an unsigned Newsletter. The court rejected the Minister's findings and recommendation as shoddy and dismissed the Union's demand in its entirety, with no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the 1994 re-grading of the grievants amounted to arbitrary demotion

Holding

The re-grading was bona fide job classification within management's prerogative and not a demotion; the grievants consented to the re-grading

Reasoning

The court defined demotion as lowering in rank, noted that positions claimed were non-existent before the 1982 collective agreement, that the grievants' wages and allowances were not prejudicially affected, and that management has sole discretion over job grading and suitability of employees for particular jobs based on skill, cadre and grade.

p. 7
02

Whether the Union proved monetary loss or entitlement to promotion and arrears

Holding

No monetary loss was proved; the claimed arrears were computed on non-existent jobs and no vested right to promotion existed

Reasoning

The Union's claim relied on an undated, unreferenced, unsigned and uncertified Newsletter, which the Company contended was inadmissible. The court found the tabulation of arrears was based on non-existent jobs, and agreed with the Company that the grievants suffered no monetary loss and had no vested right to promotion.

p. 8
03

Weight to be attached to the Minister's investigation findings and recommendation

Holding

The court rejected the Minister's findings and recommendation as shoddy

Reasoning

The Investigator had recommended reconfirmation of the grievants with arrears, but the court, having evaluated the parties' submissions and documentary evidence, concluded the findings did not withstand scrutiny and the demand was absurd and baseless.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • Promotion to a higher rank is a matter of management discretion, not an employee's right
  • Bona fide job grading or classification is the sole function of management and does not amount to demotion

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The demand by the Union is rejected
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 8 of the Trade Disputes Act, Cap. 234 (reference by the Minister for Labour), with statutory certificate under Section 14(9)(e) of the Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Bakery, Confectionery, Manufacturing & Allied Workers’ Union (K.) v Wrigley Co. (E.A.) Ltd (Cause 44 of 2000)  (Employment and Labour) [2007] KEIC 1 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2007). Cause 44 of 2000. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keic/2007/1/eng@2007-04-20

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.