For a general manager on maternity leave, being removed from workplace WhatsApp groups became part of a battle to keep her job, dignity and rights as an employee.
Between February and June 2021, Jeniffer Kyengo received seven show-cause letters from her employer, Grainden Millers Limited, while pregnant and on maternity leave. She eventually resigned in June, arguing that the treatment had left her with no choice but to quit.
The company maintained that removing her from the WhatsApp groups was intended to give her space to concentrate on caring for her child.
Nearly five years later, the Employment and Labour Relations Court found that Grainden had constructively dismissed and discriminated against Ms Kyengo because of her pregnancy, awarding her Sh2.2 million in compensation.
“Maternity leave is a statutory right, and an employee must not be disadvantaged for exercising that right,” Justice Christine Baari said, finding that the discrimination violated Section 5 of the Employment Act and Article 27 of the Constitution.
Ms Kyengo joined the flour miller on January 15, 2019, and rose to general manager, overseeing sales and operations. She told the court that disputes over her conduct and performance escalated during her pregnancy.
The dispute involved the seven disciplinary notices, her exclusion from official WhatsApp groups, demands for a handover while she was unwell after an emergency Caesarean section, and an alleged salary reduction from Sh206,424 to Sh156,000.
Ms Kyengo said she began maternity leave on March 22, 2021. Grainden argued that she had gone on leave about a month earlier than expected and failed to complete a proper handover.
The company also cited concerns about information leaks and asked her to leave the instant messaging forums. According to Ms Kyengo, directors removed other members from the groups, leaving her isolated, and announced her removal through the management WhatsApp group.
She argued that the disciplinary notices, exclusion from workplace communication, handover demands and salary reduction, taken together, made her continued employment untenable.
The court examined the seven notices issued between February 19 and June 16, 2021, alongside the circumstances surrounding her maternity leave.
Grainden director Lucy Mwangi confirmed that the notices had been issued but acknowledged that no disciplinary hearing followed and that Ms Kyengo had not received a written invitation to one.
Justice Baari said employers were entitled to raise genuine concerns about an employee’s performance or conduct but had to act fairly and in good faith. The repeated notices, particularly those issued during maternity leave, were significant when considered alongside the WhatsApp exclusion and demands for a handover while Ms Kyengo was medically unwell.
The judge also noted that the groups were used for official workplace communication, making the company’s claim that it wanted to protect Ms Kyengo’s maternity leave insufficient to explain its conduct.
“In my considered view, the respondent’s conduct afforested supports the claimant’s assertion that she was constructively dismissed,” the judge said.
Ms Kyengo’s resignation letter and communications made at the time showed that she had quit in response to the treatment. The court therefore found constructive dismissal despite her having formally resigned.
On pregnancy discrimination, the court found that Grainden knew Ms Kyengo was pregnant but issued repeated disciplinary notices without concluding the process or inviting her to a hearing in writing. The timing and frequency of the notices, together with the other actions, supported the finding that she had been disadvantaged in connection with her pregnancy and maternity leave.
The company failed to adequately explain the pattern of disciplinary action or demonstrate that its conduct was legitimate, proportionate and unrelated to her pregnancy.
The court also examined the dispute over Ms Kyengo’s salary. Grainden argued that the Sh206,424 figure reflected a Sh150,000 appreciation bonus paid in instalments rather than an increase in basic salary.
It alleged that a letter supporting the higher salary was forged, but Ms Mwangi acknowledged that no police report or criminal complaint had been made. The judge accepted the payslips as evidence of the applicable salary.
Grainden also accused Ms Kyengo of failing to recover customer payments and return company property. Its counterclaim sought notice pay, the value or refund of property allegedly not returned, and compensation for losses linked to unpaid customer invoices.
However, the company’s witness acknowledged that it still had the customers’ contacts and could pursue the debts. Delivery records had not been produced to establish that the goods reached the alleged debtors. Ms Kyengo, meanwhile, said she had handed the company laptop and keys to its lawyer.
The court found that Grainden had not proved what property remained outstanding, its value, the deliveries in question or Ms Kyengo’s personal responsibility for the alleged losses. It dismissed the counterclaim with costs.
Ms Kyengo’s claims for salary for February, March and April 2021 also failed because her advocate had received the relevant cheques. Her annual leave claim was dismissed because she had not established the entitlement and period claimed.
The court awarded her Sh1.2 million, equivalent to six months’ salary, for constructive dismissal and a further Sh1 million for pregnancy discrimination.
