Money Markets

Court blocks sale of Shell until staff dues are paid

Share Bookmark Print Email
Email this article to a friend

Submit Cancel
Rating
Oilibya is said to have made a Sh160 billion offer for the downstream African operations of the Anglo-Dutch transnational. Photo/FREDRICK ONYANGO

Oilibya is said to have made a Sh160 billion offer for the downstream African operations of the Anglo-Dutch transnational. Photo/FREDRICK ONYANGO 

By BENSON WAMBUGU  (email the author)
Email this article to a friend

Submit Cancel


Posted  Friday, July 2  2010 at  00:00

Lawyer, Ken Kiplagat, for the employees told the court that the action by Shell to divest in the manner contemplated amounted to the alteration of the implied contractual and equitable obligations owed by the company to its staffers.

Share This Story
Share

Disposable servitudes

The lawyer further submitted that the “going-concern” deception had previously been laid bare by Shell’s own treatment to former employees of Agip Kenya Ltd when it took over its assets.

Court papers indicates that soon after Shell acquired Agip (K) Ltd, it declared more that 90 per cent of the employees redundant even after having been promised continued employment in the new structure.

“Shell employees are likely to be treated and considered as mere disposable servitudes,” submitted Mr Kiplagat, citing the Agip (K) Ltd precedence.

The employees also complained that Standard Chartered Bank had suspended offering unsecured personal loans and demanded additional guarantees from both the company and the employees.

Mr Kiplagat said the staff recognise and accept Shell is at liberty to sell its local business on a going concern, but the transaction would result in rationalisation and redundancies.

“The intended divestiture amounts to constructive redundancies entitling our clients to activate the necessary and applicable statutory safeguards,” said the lawyer.

Shell’s employees want an exit offer that affords them an option to transit to the new owner or a buy-out of employment contracts.

It is based on the argument that workers had not contemplated their continued future employment could be with another party

« Previous Page 1 | 2