Promotion sparks legal fight at GDC over loss of staff benefits

The heart of the legal battle is the redesignation and upgrade of the petitioners from Job Grade 8 to 7 and their transition from unionisable staff to management early last year.

This led to the loss of some benefits, such as overtime allowance, in accordance with the Human Resource Policy Manual 2024.

Also affected by the changes was the medical cover benefit. The court papers show that the medical insurance for unionisable staff covers one spouse and six children, while the management staff are entitled to cover one spouse and four children.

The employees have also complained about stagnation in one job group, which GDC says is due to lack of budgetary funds from the National Treasury.

“Due to the unavailability of budgeting funds, the National Treasury issued a directive/order freezing any recruitment and promotions and any increase of allowances for all employees in the public service except those employed in the health sector. This affected all workers in public bodies and not just employees of the first respondent,” says GDC through lawyer Cecil Miller.

The advocate argues that GDC is bound by government regulations regarding allowances and notes that the workers’ demands for increased allowances are not supported by the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) guidelines.

Read: Supreme Court rules SRC has final say on salaries, allowances

“The petitioners are challenging the implementation of the redesignation purely for selfish purposes to ensure they earn allowances which were available when they were unionisable staff at Grade 8, while at the same time enjoy the improved perks such as basic salary, house allowance, and commuter allowance at Grade 7. The petitioners also do not want new graduates or people having the same qualification as them earning the same salaries,” says the advocate.

He said that following the changes in the corporate organisation structure, the petitioners’ house allowance was increased from Sh36,465 for those in Nairobi to Sh40,000 and from Sh30,387 to Sh35,000 for those in other areas such as Nakuru.

The commuter allowance was also improved from Sh12,155 to Sh20,000, while the basic salary rose from between Sh79,362 and Sh151,008 to Sh120,000 and Sh170,000.

“The redesignation and upgrade of the petitioners from Grade 8 to Grade 7 was indeed a promotion from unionisable status to management status pursuant to the redesignation agreement as read together with the collective bargaining agreement. Grade 8-12 are the unionisable staff, while Grade 7 are managerial staff,” the lawyer states.

GDC is also opposed to the workers’ request for reinstatement of the allowances pending the outcome of the legal dispute. It fears that the allowances may not be recoverable.

“It is in the public interest and public policy that the claim for reinstatement of allowances or medical coverage of up to six children as opposed to four be determined at the conclusion of the case because if the petitioners are eventually successful, they will be able to recover the allegedly withdrawn benefits,” it argues.

“On the other hand, if the allowances are reinstated at the interlocutory stage and the petition eventually fails, then the 1st respondent, hence the public, will be unable to recover the sum of money already paid to the petitioners,” argues the advocate.

An interlocutory ruling—a temporary court order before final judgment—could force GDC to reinstate allowances during the case.

The workers, led by geologist Evans Kiplagat Kimaiyo, sued the company, accusing it of unfair labour practices and discrimination.

The company was sued alongside the Attorney General, while the State Corporation Advisory Committee, Public Service Commission, and SRC are named interested parties.

The workers argue that their redesignation to management stripped them of allowances they previously enjoyed under union terms, leaving them disadvantaged compared to their peers in similar State corporations.

“Before the institution of this petition, the petitioners engaged the management of the first respondent regarding the grievances they have had, relating to their conditions of work, denied, reduced or withdrawn benefits, and injurious policies intended to humiliate, suppress and degrade them,” says Mr Kimaiyo.

They have also faulted the company’s medical scheme, claiming that management cover is inferior to that of unionisable staff, and insisted that the changes breached their constitutional rights to equality, fair labour practices, and fair remuneration.

“The petitioners’ cordial, peaceful, and solution-seeking attempts have been taken lightly, brushed aside, ignored, or left entirely unaddressed. The first respondent has, instead of addressing these genuine grievances, resorted to silence and at times issuing express, implied, and subtle threats to those agitating for better working conditions,” he states.

The petitioners want the court to either reinstate them to union terms or compel GDC to harmonise their pay and allowances with those enjoyed by other public sector workers in comparable grades.

However, lawyer Miller says they moved to court prematurely since they had not exhausted the process provided for in the Human Resource Procedure Manual 2024.

He argues that their grievances were still pending determination by the corporation’s Human Resource Management Committee, and thereafter the managing director/CEO, and finally the board of directors.

In an affidavit filed by GDC General Manager Corporate Services Irene Onyambu, the company further says the Human Resource Manual provides that hardship allowances should be based on guidelines from the Government.

And since SRC has since regularised hardship allowance at the rate of Sh12,300, Ms Onyambu says GDC is bound to comply with the directive.

“GDC, being a wholly owned government entity, is obligated to comply with all government circulars and directives,” she says.

→ [email protected]