Court awards employee Sh400K after being summoned to ‘routine meeting’ then fired

When employers summon workers to meetings without clearly stating that disciplinary action is on the table, they risk violating labour laws and exposing themselves to costly lawsuits.

That is one of the key messages emerging from a recent ruling by the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nairobi, where a former employee successfully challenged her dismissal after being called into what she believed was an ordinary office meeting, only to discover it was a disciplinary hearing that would ultimately cost her her job.

But beyond the procedural failures, the case also sheds light on another major workplace issue, how employers handle allegations of alcohol intoxication at work.

In Chirchir v Avsi Foundation, the court examined not only whether the employee had actually reported to work drunk, but also whether the employer had enough credible evidence to justify summary dismissal.

In the end, the court ruled in favour of the employee, finding both the disciplinary process and the evidence presented by the employer wanting.

The dispute involved Olivia Chepwogen Chirchir, who had been employed by the AVSI Foundation as a Project Coordinator under a fixed-term contract.

The organisation accused her of returning to work intoxicated after lunch on September 6, 2023.

According to the employer, she was so drunk that she could not effectively perform her duties and eventually had to be assisted home.

Chirchir denied the allegations and insisted she had not consumed alcohol. She described herself in court as 'a teetotaler.'

She further argued that she had not been properly informed about the accusations against her before the disciplinary session.

According to the ruling, she only received a general invite for a meeting scheduled on October 4, 2023 and believed it was a normal office meeting.

The court found that the invitation never clearly stated that it was a disciplinary hearing.

“The invite did not state that the meeting of 4th October 2023 was intended to be a disciplinary session,” the judge noted.

Justice Byram Ongaya Manani criticised the employer for what effectively became an ambush hearing.

“It was unfair for the Respondent to have sent the Claimant a blind invite only for her to be confronted with the charges against her on the morning of the disciplinary hearing,” the ruling stated. “This violated her right to fair procedure.”

One of the most important parts of the judgment was the court’s discussion on intoxication in the workplace and what employers must prove before firing someone over alcohol-related allegations.

The court acknowledged that drunkenness at work can amount to gross misconduct under Kenyan employment law.

“Being drunk whilst at work constitutes gross misconduct for which an employee may be summarily dismissed from employment,” the judge said.

However, the court drew an important distinction between simply consuming alcohol and being too intoxicated to perform one’s duties.

The ruling stated that 'ingesting an alcoholic drink is not a ground for dismissal' unless it renders an employee unable or unwilling to perform their responsibilities.

That distinction could have significant implications for employers across Kenya, especially in industries where disciplinary action over alcohol consumption is common.

The judge explained that employers must provide cogent evidence showing that the worker was intoxicated to a level that affected job performance.

In this case, the employer relied heavily on witness statements from colleagues who claimed the employee appeared drunk.

One witness testified that the employee 'was looking drunk,' while another claimed she 'could not walk by herself.'

But the court identified serious inconsistencies in their accounts.

For instance, one witness claimed the employee went for lunch after 2pm while another insisted she left around 1pm.

There were also contradictions over whether she had been accompanied by a friend throughout the afternoon.

“These are significant contradictions,” the court observed.

The ruling further noted that there was no scientific evidence, such as alcohol test results, to support the intoxication claims.

“As such, the court finds that the Respondent has not presented cogent evidence to demonstrate that the Claimant was either drunk or that her conduct caused it to genuinely believe that she was drunk,” the judge ruled.

The decision is likely to attract attention from HR departments and employers because it reinforces two major principles in employment disputes.

First, employers must follow proper disciplinary procedure. Workers cannot simply be ambushed into hearings without adequate notice or information about the accusations they face.

Second, allegations of intoxication must be backed by credible and consistent evidence.

The court also faulted the employer for failing to issue a proper written show-cause letter and for not informing the employee of her right to attend the hearing with another employee of her choice.

In the end, the dismissal was declared unfair. The court awarded the former employee compensation equivalent to three months’ salary amounting to Sh370,800, as well as notice pay of Sh123,600.