Bridge school ordered to pay former employees Sh67,000 for unfair dismissal

The Labour Relations Court has ordered Bridge International Academies Limited to pay its two former loaders Sh67,000 for unfair termination of their employment nine years ago.

Justice James Rika awarded Mr Patrick Munyao Mulwa and Jacob Asila Atola the sum of Sh67,950 following a finding that the educational organisation failed to show reasons why it terminated their contracts.

In condemning the organization, the court also found the ex-employees were not taken through a fair procedure on termination.

“Bridge International Academies Limited did not establish valid reason or reasons, to justify termination. There was an opportunity to attend conciliation meetings (at Labour office), and advance reason or reasons for termination. Opportunity was availed again on the floor of the court. It was squandered,” the judge said.

Terminated contracts

The court heard that the two loaders at the time of dismissal in July 2014 were advised that their services were no longer required.

The organisation failed in showing reason or reasons, why it terminated the contracts. They said that they were advised there was a redundancy situation.

“This was not sufficiently contradicted by the organization. It was for the Bridge International Academies Limited to establish reason or reasons justifying termination. In the absence of such reason or reasons, the court would conclude that termination was unfair,” said Justice Rika.

They worked for the organisation as casual workers, discharging the roles of loading at its warehouse, between February and July 2013 and being paid a daily rate of Sh450, which was paid fortnightly.

Unpaid wages

Mr Mulwa testified that he was paid his wages through M-Pesa. He did not have documents showing that the orgnisation employed him. He worked for about one year and five months.

He said the documents were retained by the organisation and that he was not paid wages for the last month worked.

For his part, Mr Atola similarly said he did not have any document showing that he was employed by the organisation. The documents were retained by the organisation, he said.

He stated that he worked for the organisation for about one year and two months.

“There is no evidence to show that service was truncated. Under Section 37 of the Employment Act, the Claimants would be considered regular Employees, entitled to full benefits and protection due to a regular Employee, under the Act,” said the judge.