The respondent has embarked on an exercise to implement the new organisation structure by migrating staff from the old structure. Further and in particular:

Employees who don’t undergo suitability interviews will migrate but will be condemned to stay ungraded at the default level at the bottom in the new structure.

The respondent has an obligation to ensure that during the migration all employees undergo suitability interviews with the view to their being graded.

The employees had the legitimate expectation that the respondent would invite all of them to undergo suitability interviews with the view to their being graded as they migrated to the new organisation structure.

The employees also had a legitimate expectation that the job descriptions and the requirements for the new grades would remain as had been approved by the respondent, and would not be arbitrarily changed to suit certain individuals.

On Friday, 3rd March 2017, Elizabeth Njau, the respondent’s Senior Manager Human Resource and Administration, circulated an email containing an advertisement announcing internal vacancies, stating that the Commission was seeking to fill certain vacancies by interviewing and promoting qualified and suitable employees. She circulated a further email on Monday, 6th March 2017, stating that the commission had “made a change in the Economic Regulation department.”

Shortly thereafter, the petitioner received complaints from some employees of the respondent who were aggrieved that the new organization structure was being implemented selectively and in violation of the law. The particulars of the complaints were that:

Only a part of the positions approved for migration and promotions had been advertised;

The organisation structure approved by the Commission Board was neglected during the job vacancy advertisement;

Add comment


Security code
Refresh