The Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nairobi has ruled that G4S Kenya Limited unlawfully dismissed a number of its security guards in a protracted dispute with the Kenya National Private Security Workers Union, ordering the multinational firm to compensate and pay gratuities to the affected employees.
- •Justice Hellen Wasilwa found that G4S had failed to provide valid reasons or follow due process in terminating the contracts of 68 guards accused of sleeping on duty, intoxication, insubordination, and other misconduct.
- •The court held that the company ignored both the Employment Act and its own Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the union, resulting in dismissals deemed unfair and unjustified.
- •Without documented evidence of the alleged misconduct, the court determined that G4S had neither valid grounds nor procedural fairness to justify the dismissals.
“A termination of employment by an employer is unfair if the employer fails to prove that the reason for the termination is valid; that the reason for the termination is a fair reason related to the employees conduct, capacity or compatibility; or based on the operational requirements of the employer; and that the employment was terminated in accordance with fair procedure,” the court stated.
The guards, represented by the Kenya National Private Security Workers Union, said they were fired without being heard and without the union’s participation as required under this recognition agreement and the labour law.
The union had accused G4S of breaching clauses in the CBA that explicitly require disciplinary processes to comply with the Employment Act and stipulate progressive discipline through warnings before termination.
It stated in its submissions that the G4S had pre-determined to replace the dismissed long-serving guards with cheaper labour and that none of the accused employees were given written show-cause letters, hearings, or explanations for their dismissal.
Why G4S Lost
In its defence, G4S described the alleged infractions, particularly sleeping while on duty, as gross misconduct in an industry that demands constant vigilance. The company said its disciplinary code of conduct, displayed in changing rooms and reiterated in regular parades, clearly defined such conduct as grounds for summary dismissal.
The company insisted that disciplinary hearings were conducted in accordance with the law and that guards were informed of charges, allowed representation, and even granted rights of appeal. It also argued that it retained the managerial right to recruit, train, and dismiss employees in line with its internal code and operational needs.
However, evidence presented in court weakened G4S’s position. The firm’s human resources witness, Agnetta Wakio, conceded that there were no termination letters, minutes of disciplinary hearings or proof of payments made to the dismissed guards. She also admitted that the company could not prove that the alleged memos on disciplinary policies had been displayed or acknowledged by staff.
Justice Wasilwa awarded the guards one month’s salary in lieu of notice, one month’s salary for untaken leave, gratuity for each completed year of service, and seven months’ salary as compensation for unfair termination.
The court also ordered G4S to issue certificates of service and pay the costs of the suit, with interest accruing from the date of judgment.
