- •A notice that the contract would not be renewed was issued to Muthee on 25th November 2017.
- •One of the grounds for non-renewal was poor performance.
Image: FILE
A former programmes manager at the Network of African National Human Rights Institutions has failed to convince the court that her employment was terminated for being pregnant.
Employment and Labour Relations Judge Anna Mwaure said there was no evidence that Margaret Wamuyu Muthee’s alleged termination had anything to do with her pregnancy.
The court ruled that the employment was terminated because her contract had expired.
The employer declined to renew her contract because of poor performance.
Muthee was employed by the Network of African National Human Rights Institutions on January 4, 2016 for a term of one-year renewable subject to performance and availability of funds.
The contract was renewed on January 5, 2017 for another one year, once again subject to performance and availability of funds.
In a letter dated October 25, 2017, the Network of African National Human Rights Institutions failed to renew Muthee's contract and instead gave her two months’ notice of non-renewal.
During the course of 2017, her employer had noted a number of performance concerns.
Muthee was reportedly not responsive or sensitive of time which affected the organization’s operations significantly.
These concerns were communicated verbally by her supervisor but she did not improve.
The Network of African National Human Rights Institutions told the court that Muthee’s performance issues prejudiced not only them but also donors and other partners and stakeholders they were working with.
The institution was emphatic that non-renewal of Muthee’s contract was not because she was pregnant as they issued the letter before they got to know she was pregnant.
But on her part Muthee argued that it is trite law that her employer is obligated to subject an employee to a disciplinary hearing on account of poor performance.
She further said that before termination of employment, there must have been a performance evaluation process with proper evaluation tools.
Muthee in her argument noted that under Article 4 of the ILO Maternity Protection Convention Number 183 (2000), an employee is entitled to a period of maternity leave of not less than 14 weeks.
Muthee maintained she was terminated because she was pregnant.
She sued her former employer seeking declaration of compensation and that non-renewal of her contract because of pregnancy violated her rights.
Judge Mwaure in dismissing her case said Muthee failed to show any correlation between her being pregnant and the expiration of her contract which she had appended to and so consented to its terms including the duration of the contract.
The court also found that the Network of African National Human Rights Institutions did not violate any of her rights.
The judge observed that Muthee had a one year contract which expired by coming of time.
'There is no other finding that can be otherwise reached…this court cannot interfere with the executed contracts between the parties,”
A notice that the contract would not be renewed was issued to Muthee on November 25, 2017.
One of the grounds for non-renewal was poor performance.
According to the court records, there is myriad of email communication to demonstrate that Muthee’s performance was wanting.
“She was even to attend an international conference but she failed to go citing advise from her doctor not to travel,”said the Judge.
“It is understood that one can be in medical considerations but considering this was pregnancy not sickness she should have informed her supervisors in good time in order for them to make proper arrangements,” she added.