3.
Previous warnings-To be taken into account when considering whether employer acted with reasonableness
Facts
The applicant was dismissed for absenteeism. He asked for permission to go to the hospital. However he failed to report back to work
afterwards. When asked to produce a medical report he failed to produce any. The respondent invited him to explain his action. His
explanation was not convincing hence his termination. He challenged the termination alleging that the reason was not valid and that
he was not given a hearing to defend himself. The respondent averred that the reason was valid and that the applicant was given a
fair hearing.
The Law
The Employment Act provides that an employer is entitled to dismiss summarily an employee guilty of habitual or substantial neglect
of his duties and an employee who is guilty of absence from work without permission of the employer and without reasonable excuse,
see section 59 Employment Act.
In the instant case the applicant was found guilty of absence from work without permission and without reasonable excuse. Before this
incident he had been warned on 23 December 2004 for late reporting for duties. After this warning he had been given a final warning
on 4 January 2005 for leaving his office without permission. The applicant was given an opportunity to be heard. Even before this hearing the applicant through the warnings was given an opportunity
to change for the better. The respondent did all its best to act reasonably on the applicant before dismissal.
Finding
The reason for dismissal was valid and process before dismissal was fair. The court therefore finds that the dismissal was fair. This
action is dismissed in its entirety.
Any party aggrieved by this decision is at liberty to appeal to the High Court within 30 days of this judgment.
