Brief Facts & Analysis:
On redundancy, in Juma Hardware Limited v Tungani & 2 others [2025] KEELRC 317 (KLR), the Respondents had filed the suit at the Magistrate's court in which the trial court found the redundancy process unfair because the Appellant had failed to 'convince the Respondents of the need for the redundancy'.
On appeal, the Appellant submitted that the trial court imposed an undue burden on the Appellant, exceeding the requirements of the law. The law permits an employer to declare redundancies provided it complies with statutory obligations, which the Appellant stated it fully satisfied.
The obligation is to present valid reasons for the redundancy, not to ensure the affected employees are subjectively "satisfied" or "convinced" by those reasons.
The obligation is to present valid reasons for the redundancy, not to ensure the affected employees are subjectively "satisfied" or "convinced" by those reasons.
Court's determination:
The appellate court found that the trial court overreached by stating that the Respondents ought to be satisfied with the reasons for the redundancy yet they were represented by the union which participated in the entire process.
The requirement for the claimants to be personally issued with financial accounts statements when the union represented them was an overreach and beyond the requirements of sections 40 and 45(2) of the Employment Act.
Full Case available Here
No comments:
Post a Comment