6 years ago
Damn that word!!!
“Outsourcing”, Nyakio does not like that word; to her it symbolizes the end of a job she has held for over 15 years. She is employed as a ‘wrapper’, that is, someone who wraps manufactured products as the final step in the manufacturing process.
In the past 2 years, the union she belongs to has warned her and her colleagues that outsourcing is the latest trend which is being adopted by employers to eliminate the burden and obligations placed on employers under the labour laws.
The union had cited a number of companies where services such as those of wrappers had been outsourced. The union is aware that management is seriously contemplating outsourcing, especially now that Mzee (the company’s founder) is too old to be involved in the affairs of the company; Mzee is against machines.
That which she feared the most finally came
A meeting was called by management at which the wrappers were informed that it was inevitable and necessary for the company to downsize wrappers from fifty to just ten.
Those whose jobs were affected were issued with redundancy notices, paid their terminal dues and they left. Fortunately or unfortunately, since Mueni is one of the longest serving wrappers, the “first in, last out” rule saved her job, at least for now.
When Mueni reported to work the Monday after her former colleagues’ last Friday at work, she was surprised to see Nyakio and the rest of her former colleagues on the shop floor; apparently they had been offered employment by OutFit (the outsourcing company) and had been deployed to work at the company. This worked well for OutFit as they had a ready pool of workers who needed no training.
Nyakio, and the other outsourced workers, were glad to be back at work but their joy was short lived.
Their terms and conditions of service were significantly lower than those of Mueni and the rest of their former colleagues, OutFit was relatively young and it did not have solid systems and structures and worst of all, they were missing out on the benefits of collective bargaining and union representation. It was not long before they became a disgruntled lot and this was impacting their performance negatively.
The union representing Mueni approached the company with the aim of looping in the outsourced workers into the collective bargaining agreement.
The company declined on the grounds that the outsourced workers were employees of OutFit and could not be governed by a collective bargaining agreement which provided the terms and conditions of service of the company’s workers.
With time, the disparity between the terms and conditions of service of the outsourced workers and those of Mueni and the rest of the wrappers became too expansive so much so that Nyakio, and the other outsourced workers, decided to sue OutFit for what they termed as ‘unfair labour practices’, that is, the fact that they were doing the same job as the other wrappers and yet their terms and conditions of service were significantly lower.
The court could not hide its shock at the disparities, the most shocking being the fact that the salary gap was almost Kshs. 10,000/=.
The Judge found in favour of Claimants against OutFit; he held that the disparities amounted to unfair labour practices.
He also held that the redundancy was unlawful since the positions of wrappers had not been abolished, the company had simply wanted to get rid of some of the wrappers so as to engage the outsourcing company which could provide wrappers at a cheaper fee [update – it is now accepted that this would be a legitimate redundancy].
Our courts have, overtime, developed a set of principles on the issue of outsourcing:-
- employers are not expected to outsource their core functions;
- an employer will not be permitted to use outsourcing as a means to escape from meeting accrued contractual obligations to its employees; and
- outsourcing is unlawful if its effect is to introduce discrimination between employees doing equal work in an enterprise.
Since outsourcing is not expressly covered in our labour laws, whenever a question involving outsourcing arises, our courts stand by Article 41 of the Constitution which provides that, ‘every person has a right to fair labour practices’ as well as decided cases and international conventions such as ILO Convention No. 181 Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997.
Under the Convention, private employment agencies include those entities that offer various labour market services which include employing workers with a view to making them available to a third party, which assigns their tasks and supervises the execution of these tasks.
It is made clear, under the Convention that measures should be taken to ensure that workers recruited by private employment agencies are not denied the right to freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively. The Convention is however not legally binding in Kenya since it has not been ratified.
The information on this website is for general guidance on your rights and responsibilities and is not legal advice. If you need more details on your rights or legal advice about what action to take, please contact a lawyer.
We try to ensure that the information on this website is accurate. However, we will not accept liability for any loss, damage or inconvenience arising as a consequence of any use of or the inability to use any information on this website.
We assume no responsibility for the contents of linked websites. The inclusion of any link should not be taken as an endorsement of any kind by us of the linked website or any association with its operators. Further, we have no control over the availability of the linked pages.