A Kenyan court has ruled that an employer can have a valid reason to dismiss an employee but still be liable for unfair termination if it fails to give the worker adequate time to respond to disciplinary allegations.

🇰🇪 Breaking It Down

The ruling stemmed from a case involving a worker who was dismissed after being accused of reporting to work after consuming alcohol while working in a safety-sensitive LPG facility. The court found that the employer had a genuine and reasonable basis for taking disciplinary action over the alleged misconduct.

According to the evidence presented in court, the worker had consumed alcohol before reporting for his afternoon shift and acknowledged that he had woken up with a hangover. Disciplinary records also indicated that an alcohol-detection device returned a reading of 150.

The court found that working in such a condition while handling LPG cylinders posed a serious safety risk and that intoxication capable of affecting an employee's ability to perform their duties can constitute a valid reason for summary dismissal under the Employment Act.

📌 What You Need to Know

However, the court found that the employer failed to follow a fair disciplinary procedure before terminating the worker. The key issue was the amount of time he was given to respond to the formal allegations.

The incident occurred on October 17, 2024, while the Notice to Show Cause was issued on October 22. The worker was required to submit his response by 5 pm on the same day the notice was issued, giving him only a few hours to respond to the formal disciplinary allegations.

A disciplinary hearing was then held on October 25 . The court also raised concerns over evidence showing when the worker received the invitation to the hearing, noting that the document appeared to have been acknowledged on the date of the hearing itself.

The court said issuing a Notice to Show Cause, a hearing invitation and disciplinary minutes does not automatically make a process fair. An employee must be given a genuine and reasonable opportunity to understand the allegations, consider the evidence, seek assistance where necessary and prepare a response.

Further, the court rejected the argument that the worker's earlier statement about the incident was enough to cure the problem. It held that a preliminary statement made immediately after an incident is not necessarily the same as a considered response to a formal disciplinary charge.

The court also noted that the employer had not produced the primary alcohol-test result, although it found that the absence of the test printout did not by itself invalidate the substantive reason for the disciplinary action.

📰 Source: Kenyans.co.ke