- John Sila and 44 others filed the claim against Shree Haree Builders and Eurecca Developers Limited.
- The 45 were employed as casuals at Riverside Drive to develop some office suits in 2015.
Image: FILE
45 casual workers at a construction site on Riverside Drive have lost a bid to have their former employers award them Sh11 million for alleged unlawful termination.
In her judgment, Employment and Labor Relations Judge Stella Rutto said a casual employee is an employee who is engaged for twenty-four hours at a time and as per the provisions of Section 35(1) (a) of the Employment Act, such engagement is terminable at the end of the day, without notice.
“Having failed to plead conversion from a casual basis, I am unable to find that the claimants were engaged on other terms beyond casual basis. What this means is that their employment was terminable at the end of the day hence no notice or reason was required prior to termination,” she said.
John Sila and 44 others filed the claim against Shree Haree Builders and Eurecca Developers Limited.
The 45 were employed as casuals at Riverside Drive to develop some office suits in 2015.
They told the court they arrived at work as usual in 2016 only to find the site at Riverside Drive closed.
The security guard at the site informed them that he had instructions not to talk to them and that they had been terminated from employment.
The claimants from the court documents claimed they tried to engage the site managers and the developer but they brushed them off telling them that they were no longer employees there.
Sila testified that the casuals were paid a daily wage of Sh350 which was below the minimum wage of Sh527 per day.
That they were never issued contracts of service and were not allowed to proceed on annual leave.
Nonetheless, they executed their duties with due diligence and dispatch.
“It is on account of the foregoing that each of the claimants seeks against the respondents jointly and severally, the sum of Sh10,864,817 leaving pay, compensatory damages, notice pay and underpayment,” read the court records.
On that same day, they found the site to be closed, the 45 subsequently rushed to the labour office to lodge a complaint.
The labour officer gave them a letter addressed to Meghprin contractors who were their employers at the time.
The 45 according to the judgment did a search at the company registry and through a letter dated March, 13, 2017, the Registrar informed them that the said company was not registered.
“They (claimants) later went to the site and to their consternation, the signboard had been changed and there was a new one erected with the name Shree Haree Builders.”
The court records indicate that at the time, the site manager, Premji and Salesh were still there.
The claimants tried to engage them but they were brushed off. They also tried to talk to the developer but they were chased away.
Sila told the court there was no valid reason for their termination and their families suffered as they were breadwinners.
He asked the Court to grant them the prayers sought.
Eurecca however opposed the claim in a Statement of Response dated 17th November, 2017.
It denied the existence of the employment relationship and averred that since it never employed the claimants, the issue of unfair dismissal or breach of contract does not arise.
They denied owing the claimants any sum of money.
They produced a Labour contract executed with Shree Builders. Shree was the contractor and Eurecca was the developer. The contractor according to the contract was to be responsible for all salaries.
“The developer will be responsible for payments to the contractor only based on work done and not for the workers present on site,” read the contract.
Shree builders were unrepresented in the case. It did not file a defence to affirm or dispute the employment relationship with the 45.
The Judge in dismissing the case said, “It is evident that Shree was the employer of all employees on-site, including the claimants.”
Due to the kind of employment relationship that existed between Shree and the casuals, the court held that their employment was terminable at the end of the day and no notice was required prior to termination.