Kenya Union of Commercial and Food Allied Workers Union v Woolmat Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E043 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 1702 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Naivas must pay a former employee nearly Kshs 500,000 because an employer cannot discipline a worker twice over the same offence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the grievant's summary dismissal was lawful and procedurally fair
- 2.Whether the termination was discriminatory and targeted the grievant for union membership
- 3.Whether the grievant is entitled to the reliefs sought (reinstatement, notice pay, leave, service pay, compensation)
- 4.Who bears costs of the claim
Key legal issues
#Whether termination was for a valid reason and in accordance with fair procedure under sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act
The dismissal was unfair because the grievant had already been disciplined and warned on the same issue of expired goods, and could not be subjected to a fresh disciplinary process on the same matters.
The court traced the chronology: the grievant was shown cause for displaying expired goods, heard, and issued a warning on 11th October 2022, closing that disciplinary process. Thereafter fresh show cause letters and further hearings were conducted on the same issue, culminating in dismissal. The court held litigation and discipline must come to an end and that the repeated processes were flawed, failing the requirements of sections 41 and 45.
Whether the grievant was discriminated against for union membership
Claim not established as the basis of the finding; dismissal was held unfair on procedural grounds rather than on the discrimination allegation.
The claimant alleged the grievant was targeted as a shop steward to remove him from union membership. The respondent argued there was no link between union membership since 2017 and termination in 2022. The court did not found its decision on discrimination but on the flawed repeated disciplinary process, leaving the discrimination allegation unadopted.
Legal principles established
#- Once a disciplinary process has concluded with a warning, an employer cannot subject the employee to a second disciplinary process on the same issues; doing so is a flawed process rendering dismissal unfair.
Court orders
#- 1.Compensation for unfair termination equivalent to 10 months' salary (Kshs 435,560)
- 2.One month's notice pay of Kshs 43,556
- 3.Leave not taken of Kshs 12,056
- 4.Total award of Kshs 491,172 subject to statutory deductions
- 5.Respondent to pay costs of the suit
- 6.Interest at court rates from the date of judgment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act 2007 (termination of employment claim)
Relief refused
#Reinstatement of the grievant
Court instead awarded compensation in lieu; reinstatement not ordered
Service pay of Kshs 536,000
Not included in the final award; respondent contended service pay was already paid based on actual salary of Kshs 21,778
Costs
The Respondents will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of this judgment.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The process of discipline came to the end when the warning was issued and the Respondent could not subject him to another disciplinary process based on the same issues.
Given that the grievant was subjected to a fiawed disciplinary process, being taken through a various disciplinary processes, I find his dismissal was unfair and unjustified.
In terms of remedies, given the fiawed disciplinary process, I find he is entitled to compensation equivalent to 10 months' salary.
The Respondents will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with efiect from the date of this judgment.
Issues in the judgment
#Compensation computed at Kshs 43,556 monthly salary although evidence and submissions placed the grievant's salary at Kshs 20,000-21,778 per payslip
Conflicting dates in the judgment - the show cause letter is dated 4th September 2022 in the claim but respondent pleaded 12th August 2022, and RW-1 gave inconsistent dates on re-examination
Claimant cited as 'the applicant' in the analysis section despite being the claimant
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Commercial and Food Allied Workers Union v Woolmat Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E043 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 1702 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). ELRC Cause (Memorandum of Claim dated 8th September 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1702/eng@2024-07-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.