Current trends in employment
disputes in Kenya –
A Disturbing trAjectory
** ******* ****** ** ********** Disputes in Kenya Presented by:
WiLLiAM MAeMA, Advocate
senior Partner – iseme, Kamau & Maema Advocates
to
strathmore Law school
on
14th september, 2016
www.dlapiper.com 03
contents
1. introDuction 4 2. LegAL FounDAtions 5 i) the constitution of Kenya, 2010 5 ii) employment Act, 2007 (no. 11 of 2007) 5 iii) employment and Labour relations court Act, 2011 (no. 20 of 2011) 5 iv) Labour relations Act (no. 14 of 2007) 5 v) Labour institutions Act (no. 12 of 2007 5 vi) occupational safety and Health Act, (no.15 of 2007) 5 3. toP ten triggers oF eMPLoyMent DisPutes 6 i) termination/summary Dismissal 6 ii) breach of employment contract terms 6 iii) conflicts with trade unions 6 iv) Work injury 6 v) Discrimination 7 vi) sexual Harassment 7 vii) service Pay 7 viii) termination for cause: reasons or no reasons? 9 ix) suspension 10 x) Waiver of claims 11 4. terMinAtion oPtions 12 a) resignation 12 b) termination by employer 13 c) summary Dismissal 13 d) redundancy 14 e) end of Probation/confirmation of employment 15 f) Mutual separation 16 g) expiry of Fixed term contracts 16 h) retirement 17 5. reMeDies 18 6. concLusions & recoMMenDAtions 19 04 Current Trends in Employment Disputes in Kenya Kenya has had “new ’labour laws since 2007. As we approach the end of a decade since the enactment of the legislation, it is perhaps an opportune moment to look at how these laws have been interpreted by the courts and to what extent they have served the country.
to be precise, the current labour laws were enacted in December 2007, a most significant period in the history of Kenya. therefore, an appreciation of the historical and political context in which the laws were passed provides an essential key to a contextualized understanding of the laws under discussion.
the laws were enacted a few days to the general election and were among the last batch of laws to be signed by President Kibaki at the end of his first term in office. the ruling Pnu party was keen to win the election and secure a second term in office despite very stiff competition from the opposition which, going by all the opinion polls at the time, were poised to win the election. indeed, the contest was so hot that following the declaration of the results, the country entered into one of its darkest chapters in history
– the 2007/2008 post election violence which almost degenerated into a civil war. it is therefore fair to say that every vote counted in this election.
the central organisation of trade unions (Cotu)
had for many years been pushing for the passage of more
“employee-friendly” labour laws without much success due to sustained opposition from the Federation of Kenyan employers (FKe). the high stakes posed by the general election provided cotu with a perfect opportunity to arm-twist both the legislature and the executive to pass the controversial laws. indeed, cotu had issued an ultimatum to the government that it would mobilize its membership-(read all Kenyan workers) to vote against the ruling party unless the laws were passed before the election date. it did not help that during this time, most Members of Parliament were busy campaigning out in the countryside when the bills were tabled for debate in Parliament. As expected, the laws were passed almost in the same form in which they had been proposed by cotu without much debate or scrutiny and swiftly signed into law by a president who was desperately seeking a second and last term in office.
the other historical fact to bear in mind is that the industrial court which was later renamed the employment and Labour relations court (“elrC”) has, since its inception, regarded itself as the custodian and watchdog of employee rights, much like cotu. going by the majority of the judgments issued by the court, one would be forgiven for concluding that the court’s unwritten ideology is: “the employee is always right unless the employer proves otherwise beyond reasonable doubt”.
Finally, following the adoption of the 2010 constitution, Kenyans have become more enlightened on their legal rights and, not unexpectedly, more litigious than they have ever been since independence.
the upshot of the above context is that:
a) we have laws that were largely drafted by employees
(cotu) and vehemently opposed by employers (FKe);
b) the laws were passed at a most inappropriate time in the history of the country, shrouded in political blackmail and without much scrutiny; and
c) the laws provide the eLrc with its most potent weapon yet for furtherance of its ‘pro-employee” ideology. 1. introduCtion
www.dlapiper.com 05
Kenyan labour laws are founded on 3 sources, namely, the Constitution; statute and contract. i) the Constitution oF Kenya, 2010
the bill of rights includes “Labour relations” under Article 41 of the constitution. it provides that every person has “the right to fair labour practices” as well as the right to:
a) fair remuneration
b) reasonable working conditions
c) joining and participating in trade unions;
d) to go on strike.
Further, Article 162 (2)(a) provides for the
establishment of the eLrc with exclusive jurisdiction to determine and settle all labour disputes in Kenya. ii) employment aCt, 2007 (no. 11 oF 2007)
this Act is the primary law on employment in Kenya. it replaced the previous employment Act (cap. 226). iii) employment and labour relations
Court aCt, 2011 (no. 20 oF 2011)
this Act establishes the eLrc and sets out its
objectives, composition, jurisdiction and procedure. it was previously referred to as the industrial court Act but was later renamed the eLrc pursuant to
the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments
Act, 2014 published in the Special Gazette
Supplement No. 160 (Acts No. 18 of 2014).
iv) labour relations aCt (no. 14 oF
2007)
this Act provides for the registration, regulation, management of trade unions, employers and
organizations or federations. it replaced the Trade Unions Act, (cap.233) and the Trade Disputes Act,
(cap. 234).
v) labour institutions aCt (no. 12 oF
2007
this Act establishes the various labour institutions – The National Labour Board, Committee of Inquiry,
Wages Council, and Employment Agencies etc. it
replaced the Regulation of Wages and Conditions
of Employment Act, (cap. 229).
vi) oCCupational saFety and health
aCt, (no.15 oF 2007)
this Act provides for the safety and welfare of
employees and all persons lawfully present at
workplaces.it also establishes the National Council for Occupational Safety and Health. it replaced
the Factories and Other Places of Work Act,
(cap. 514).
2. leGal Foundations
06 Current Trends in Employment Disputes in Kenya employment disputes are normally triggered by one or more of the following events: i) termination/summary dismissal
this is by far the most common cause of
employment disputes in Kenya. Disputes in this area arise from 2 fundamental aspects, namely, i) validity of the underlying circumstances and b) procedural
irregularity/unfairness.
there is a substantial difference between
termination of employment and summary dismissal.
termination can be effected by either party giving to the other the required notice or paying in lieu thereof. the employee is paid all his benefits. on the other hand, summary dismissal arises where the employee has committed an act of gross misconduct
and is literally fired without notice but subject of course to a disciplinary hearing. in that case his only entitlement is salary up to the date of dismissal and pay for any accrued leave. generally, no other benefits are payable.
ii) breaCh oF employment ContraCt
terms
even where termination has been properly done or
the contract is still in force, a party can still maintain a claim based on the breach of a material term of
the contract by the other party e.g. failure to pay/ increase salary or bonuses as required under the
contract.
in SBI International Holdings Ag (Kenya) v Amos
Hadar [2015] eKLR a clause in the employment
contract prohibited the respondent from engaging in any other work or business during his employment
with the claimant. the court held that the
respondent had knowingly breached an express term
of his employment contract and reliefs sought by the employer were granted.
iii) ConFliCts with trade unions
generally, unionized employees are represented
by their unions in labour disputes. these disputes normally continue in court concurrently with the
employment relationship e.g. teachers, doctors, etc. the disputes usually relate to the refusal by the
employer to negotiate/renew collective bargaining
Agreements (cbAs) or to implement some of its
terms e.g. increase of salary.
in Kenya hotels & allied workers union v
new Victoria hotel [2013] eKlr, the
respondents’ management had refused to sign
a recognition agreement with the claimants, to
deduct and remit union dues and had victimized
the claimants’ members for engaging in trade union activities. the court ordered the respondents to
recognize the union and start negotiations leading to the signing of a collective bargaining Agreement within 90 days and immediately start paying the
union dues to the claimants in respect of employees who had given their indication to join the union.
in Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Education
Institutions and Hospital Workers [Kudheiha] v
North Coast Beach Hotel [2015] eKLR, the court
held that the respondent had acted in breach of the cbA by dismissing employees after issuing them with fixed term contracts to avoid the provisions of the cbA which required that all employees who had
worked for an aggregate period exceeding one year
were deemed to be employed on permanent basis.
iv) worK injury
the occupational safety and health act,
2007 (the “osha”), imposes a duty on the
employer to protect the health, safety and welfare of his employees and other people who might be
affected by their business. breach of this statutory duty may lead to labour disputes.
in European Committee for Agriculture Training
Rural Development (C.E.F.A) Kenya v Moses
Muriuki Matiri [2015] eKLR, the appellate court
held that the legislation confers upon employees the right to proper protection in terms of health and
safety at work and also imposes a corresponding
duty on the employer to protect employees from
risks and injury.
3. top ten triGGers oF employment disputes
www.dlapiper.com 07
Disputes of this nature are usually filed as the
employment relationship subsists. An employer who
terminates the services of an employee on account
of such employee having filed a claim against the
employer would be held liable for unfair termination. in justus Katana Charo v ready Consultancy
Company limited [2015] eKlr, the claimant
alleged that his employment was terminated
on account of filing a suit against the employer
for compensation for injuries suffered while in
employment. the court held that had the facts
alleged by the claimant been supported by evidence, his termination would have been declared unfair.
v) disCrimination
both article 27 of the constitution and section 5
of the Act prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, nationality, ethnic or social origin, disability, pregnancy, marital status or HIV status.
section 5(7) of the Act provides that when
discrimination has been alleged by an employee,
the burden of proof shifts to the employer who
must show that it did not take place. this is a
queer provision because it runs counter to the well known principle in the law of evidence that ‘he who asserts proves”. Where the law is tilted in favour of the employee in this manner what chance does the
employer have to convince the court that in fact the alleged discrimination did not take place?
in Koki muia v samsung electronics east
africa limited [2015] eKlr, evidence adduced
in court showed that the respondent did not permit the ascension of Kenyans to high offices but “instead hired incompetent Korean nationals to supervise and oversee more qualified Kenyans”. the court found
the dismissal of the claimant to be unfair and
unlawful in the circumstances and further that she was subjected to racial and sexual discrimination. the court awarded the claimant, among others,
12 months’ salary compensation on account of
sexual and racial discrimination as well as the sum of Ksh. 7,152,000/- on account of unlawful termination. in VMK v Catholic University of Eastern Africa
[2013] eKLR, the claimant was awarded damages
of Ksh. 5 Million on account of discrimination based on her HiV positive status. it was alleged that the university had a policy that people who were HiV
positive could not be employed on permanent basis. the court said: “The testing of HIV status without her consent and the disclosure of her status to 3rd persons without her authority demonstrates the seriousness of the violations and the need to compensate the claimant for the hurt feelings and eventual loss of employment due to HIV status.”
vi) sexual harassment
An employee (of either gender) who has been
subjected to sexual harassment may maintain a claim against the employer.
under section 6 (2) of the employment Act, every
employer is required to have sexual harassment
policy setting out the procedure that an employee
who has been subjected to sexual should follow in
filing the complaint and pursuing a remedy.
Most employers are found liable not because the
act of sexual harassment occurred but because they did not have such a policy. in C a s v C s limited
[2016] eKlr – the employer was found to be in
breach of the employment Act for failure to have a sexual harassment policy.
sexual harassment claims are usually raised within a claim for unfair termination. rarely do employees make such claims while still in employment.
vii) serViCe pay
this term ‘service’ pay is not to be confused with
‘severance’ pay which is payable on account of a
redundancy.
section 35 (5) of the act provides that an
employee whose contract of employment is
terminated upon the issuance of a termination
notice is entitled to service pay for every year
worked “at such rate as shall be fixed”. this inelegant language has resulted in a great deal of confusion in the interpretation of the provisions relating to service pay.
Prior to 2007, the concept of ‘service pay’ was
only found in collective bargaining agreements and applied only to unionised staff. the idea was to
provide employees who had served for a substantial 08 Current Trends in Employment Disputes in Kenya period of time with some lump-sum payment upon
the termination of their contracts by the employer, something akin to a gratuity or pension.
the provision, presumably drafted by cotu, did not fix the rate or provide a formula of how it is to be fixed.
interestingly, instead of a facing up to this lacuna and calling for legislative reform to clarify the provision or simply declaring it impracticable to implement, the court has, without any basis whatsoever,
proceeded to presume that the rate is to be fixed
by the employer. this does not make much sense
because a) the law does not say so and b) one party to a contract cannot unilaterally dictate the terms. What, for instance, would happen if the employer
fixed a rate that was unacceptable to the employee? Further, the eLrc has, again without any reasonable basis and quite erroneously in my view, taken the
view that in the absence of a defined rate in the
contract of employment, the rate applicable to
severance pay on account of redundancy also applies to service pay! What surely is the basis for drawing the analogy between service pay and severance pay? in Daniel Oluoch Oguta v the Hon. Attorney
General ad another, Industrial Cause No. 1223
of 2012, the court held that “ the claimant was
entitled to service pay for every year worked, the terms of which shall be fixed no evidence has been placed before the court on the rate of calculating severance pay... the court will however be guided by the provisions of the Employment Act with regard to redundancy and in particular Section 40 (a) and apply a similar rate to that applicable to employees terminated on account of redundancy at the rate “not less than fifteen days’ pay for each completed year of service”.
this case demonstrates the extent to which the
labour court is prepared to bend backwards to
reach a finding that is favourable to the employee. the logical implication of the court’s reasoning is to equate ordinary termination of employment to
a redundancy which is completely incorrect and
has huge financial implications on the employer.
it makes the termination of employment a very
costly affair and lends credence to FKe’s often-
repeated argument that the 2007 labour laws are
very expensive to implement.
Fortunately, section 35 (6) of the employment Act
attempts to water down the adverse implications
of the requirement for service pay by listing down some exceptions to the rule, namely, that service
pay would not be applicable where the employee is
a member of a:
a) registered pension scheme or provident fund;
b) gratuity or service pay scheme;
c) any other scheme established by the employer
whose terms are more favourable than the
scheme established under the employment Act
(none is established!); or
d) national social security fund.
the above exceptions, taken together, render the
requirement for service pay almost meaningless.
For instance, since nssF is a mandatory registration which applies to all employees, it follows that no employee would qualify for service pay so long as
the nssF membership subsists. However, despite
this very clear provision, the eLrc has again in my view misinterpreted the law and held that for this exception to apply, the employer must demonstrate
that he has been making regular contributions to
nssF on behalf of the employee.
in elijah Kipkoros tonui v ngara opticians
t/a bright eyes limited [2014] eKlr, the
respondent failed to pay the claimant part of his
terminal dues after working for 25 years and
further failed to remit the national social security Fund contributions consistently. evidence adduced
in court revealed that the respondent had not
remitted nssF payments for a consecutive period of 5 years. the court held “this law is intended to ensure employees do not enter into retirement without social security. At the same time, the interest of employers is safeguarded, through the restriction on employees being paid double social security benefits. Service pay is therefore payable under Section 35 [5] only to employees who are not covered under the different social security mechanisms elaborated under Section 35 [6]… The Claimant shall therefore be paid service pay, less any benefits made on the Claimant from the National Social Security Fund”.
www.dlapiper.com 09
on the mode of computation of service pay, the
court applied the rate for severance pay, noting:
“Decisions of the Honourable Judges of the Industrial Court have in the recent past viewed the payment
of service pay as a bare statutory minimum, and
enforced the provision even in the absence of
express fixed terms of service pay, based on the
minimum 15 days’ salary for every completed year of service given under the redundancy law, and which
is also the floor in most industrial wage orders on severance, gratuity or service pay. Employees who
hold terms and conditions of employment
without fixed terms on the service pay
should not be discriminated, and the Court
fully embraces recent decisions which
have adopted the 15 days’ salary for each
completed year of service, whenever such
default is present.”
For the record, section 35(6) does not mention
anything about contributions to nssF or the
regularity of such contributions. it only refers to membership. Would it, perhaps, not have been more
logical for the court in the above case to hold the employer liable for all unpaid nssF dues, interest and penalties instead of imposing a more generous
but unjustified formula for the computation of
service pay?
viii) termination For Cause: reasons or
no reasons?
is the employer required to give reasons for any kind of termination?
the doctrine of freedom of contract dictates that
one may freely enter and exit a contract at will,
subject only to giving the proper contractual notice. this notwithstanding, the eLrc apparently thinks
otherwise and has categorically stated that Kenyan law no longer recognizes the concept of “employment at will”.
the law does not specifically require the employer to give reasons for termination in every case.
the relevant provision is section 43(1) of the
employment Act which provides as follows:
“In any claim arising out of termination of
a contract, the employer shall be required
to prove the reason or reasons for the
termination, and where the employer fails
to do so, the termination shall be deemed
to have been unfair within the meaning of
section 45.”
Firstly, the above provision illustrates the obvious influence of cotu in the formulation of the 2007
labour laws. Prior to 2007, no such provision existed in the laws and both the employer and employee
clearly understood that either of them could opt out of the contract at any point by either giving notice or paying in lieu thereof. this was indeed never a disputed issue. it is therefore not clear why it was inserted in the law.
secondly, the labour court has latched onto the
above provision to declare that while the employee is free to end the contract of employment at
any time by simply tendering his resignation, the
employer does not enjoy such a right. According to the court, unlike the employee, the employer has no right to terminate a contract of employment unless he has a valid reason for doing so. is this really the correct interpretation of the law?
the objective interpretation of the above provision is that reasons for termination are only required
when a claim for unfair termination has been lodged by an employee who presumably argues that there
existed some underlying reasons for the termination which, had they been disclosed to him, he would
have explained and probably saved his job. to the
extent that the employer acted on such undisclosed reasons without giving the employee an opportunity to respond to them, the termination is unfair.
i take the view that there are many situations
when an employer might want to get rid of an
employee without necessarily having any reasons
worth disclosing to the employee. For example the
employee might be an average performer, a mildly
bad influence, pathological gossiper, person of
loose morals, incorrigible bad human habits, non
conducive family situation or the employer might
simply have identified a better replacement. in such circumstances, to confront the employee with
10 Current Trends in Employment Disputes in Kenya
‘reasons’ of this kind would not be useful since he will most likely become defensive and dispute the
validity of the reasons.
the eLrc has, however, taken the view that not only must the employer give reasons in every case before terminating an employment contract, he must also
accord the employee an opportunity to be heard in
the manner contemplated under section 41(1). it is worth noting that this section requires a disciplinary hearing only in the cases of summary dismissal and termination based on misconduct, poor performance
or physical incapacity. However, as the cases below demonstrate, the eLrc has expanded the scope of
this section to include all cases of termination.
in Mary Chemweno Kiptui v Kenya Pipeline
Company Limited [2014] eKLR, the court held
that the reasons for termination must be given
prior to and not after termination. the judge said:
“Under subsection 43 (2) …However this reason or
reasons must be addressed before the termination notice is issued and subjected to a hearing to establish if the employee has a defence that is worth consideration. The reasons should never be given after the termination has taken effect. This would be an outright negation of the purpose, intent and validity of any reason or reasons an employer may have against the affected employee.” Where does the court infer the requirement
of giving reasons and holding a hearing in every
termination case from and why does it apply to the employee only?
Further, in James Kabengi Mugo V Syngenta East
Africa Limited [2013] eKLR, the court stated:
“The Kenyan Employment Law no longer accepts
that employers can fire employees at will, for any reason or no reason. …This at will doctrine was
the dominant termination law in Kenya prior to the advent of the Employment Act 2007… The Law has
now been made unambiguous, with the employment
protections that came with the enactment of the
Employment Act in 2007.”
is the law really “unambiguous” on this issue as the court claims? since the scope of section 41(1) is
limited to summary dismissal and termination based on poor performance or physical incapacity, where
does the eLrc infer the basis to extend the scope of this provision to all kinds of termination?
According to the court, the only exception where
reasons and a hearing are not required is the
termination of probationary contracts as provided
under section 42(1). However, the court overlooked the fact that section 42(1) does not apply generally but is limited to the subject of section 41(1)
i.e. summary dismissal and termination on account
of poor performance or physical incapacity.
the writer’s interpretation of section 42(1) is
that when summarily dismissing and employee or
terminating his employment during the probation
period, it is not necessary to hold the disciplinary hearing required under section 41(1).
in danish jalang’o & another v amicabre
travel services limited [2014] eKlr the court
stated: “There is no obligation under Section 43 and 45 for Employers to give valid and fair reasons for termination of probationary contracts, or to hear such Employees at all, little less in accordance with the rules of fairness, natural justice or equity. The only question the Court should ask, is whether the appropriate notice was given, or if not given, whether the Employee received pay in lieu of notice; and, whether the Employee was, during the probation period, treated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the probationary contract. The Employee has no expectation of substantive
justification, or fairness of procedure, outside what the probation clause and Section 42 of the Employment
Act 2007 grants. If the Employee has received notice of 7 days before termination, or is paid 7 days’ wages before termination, there can be no further demands made on the Employer. The Employer retains the
discretion whether to confirm, or not confirm an
Employee serving under probation. The law relating to unfair termination does not apply in probationary contracts.”
ix) suspension
this is a much misunderstood concept in Kenya.
the law does not provide for suspension of
employees. it can, however, be sanctioned by either the employment contract or Hr Manual (provided
the terms of the Hr Manual are incorporated by
reference into the employment contract).
www.dlapiper.com 11
suspension is only lawful if:
■ it is allowed under the contract or Hr policies of the employer;
■ it is for a relatively short period sufficient for completion of investigations;
■ employee is paid his full pay for the duration of the suspension irrespective of the outcome of the
investigation; and
■ suspension is not an end in itself and should not be used as punishment.
in thomas sila nzivo v bamburi Cement
limited [2014] eKlr the court stated:
“Section 19 of the Employment Act outlines nine
occasions when the Employer may deduct from the
wages of an Employee. No provision under this law allows the employer to deny a suspended employee his monthly salary as ‘’a warning of the effect of losing his job and as a reminder to the Employee that he would lose his job if he continued being indisciplined.’’ Withholding of an Employee’s salary cannot be a disciplinary sanction. The salary remains protected under Part IV of the
Employment Act, even during suspension. The contract of employment is still in force. The suspension without pay, offended the principles of Fair Labour Practices and Protection of Wages.”
in Peterson Ndung’u & 5 Others v. KP&L
Company Limited [2014], the court held:
“The salary remains protected under Part IV of the Employment Act, even during suspension. The contract of employment is still in force. The suspension without pay, offended the principles of Fair Labour Practices and Protection of Wages. The Claimant is entitled
to the salary and allowances for the duration he was under suspension. To uphold the Respondent’s decision in withholding these would mean that the Claimant is punished twice, over the same employment wrong.”
in Paul Mwaura Mbugua V Kagwe Tea Factory
Ltd & Another [2012] eKLR the court held: “An
employee on suspension has a legitimate expectation that at the very least, they will be afforded an
opportunity to defend themselves against any adverse findings that may arise from investigations carried out during their suspension. To keep an employee on suspension, without pay for over 7 months, waiting for them to blink first is not only unlawful but also inhumane.”
x) waiVer oF Claims
in the context of a mutual separation it is not
uncommon for employers to require the employees
to sign a waiver or discharge confirming that subject only to the payment of the agreed terminal dues,
they have no other or further claims against the
employer.
this waiver/discharge is normally the