The labour court in Kenya has delivered a landmark ruling, arguing employers cannot prohibit romantic relationships among employees.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!The court says love should not be stifled by corporate policies.
The decision by Justice James Rika of Employment and Labour Relations sitting in Nairobi stems from a case involving MN, a former regional operations manager at G4S, who was terminated after engaging in a romantic affair with a junior employee known as DJ.
Justice Rika awarded the former manager Sh3.2 million (UGX 90 million for his unfair dismissal, asserting that it is not the employer’s role to interfere in the personal lives of their staff.
He stated: “Nothing is more degrading than for a third party, an employer, to intermeddle in a love relationship between two consenting adults.”
In his ruling, Justice Rika emphasised that romantic relationships at work should be left to their own natural course.
He urged employers to allow their employees to thrive both personally and professionally, stating, “It is a harebrained law or policy that would seek to outlaw the affairs of the heart. Employers must leave Bill and Melinda Gates within their undertakings to grow and to find themselves in each other, while they continue to be productive to the business.”
He added that there was no valid reason shown by the employer to justify the termination of the claimant’s contract, maintaining Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act were not honoured.
The judge’s remarks highlighted the importance of privacy and personal freedom at the workplace.
The case revealed a complex web of allegations, including claims that MN had influenced the transfer of DJ and made unwanted advances towards her.
Both MN and DJ admitted to their romantic relationship, but the judge found no evidence supporting the claims of misconduct. Notably, DJ faced her own challenges when she falsely claimed that MN had impregnated her, which was disproven by a DNA test.
Justice Rika scrutinised the company’s policies, particularly clause 14 of their sexual harassment policy, which prohibited romantic relationships.
He ruled that such policies infringe on the privacy rights of employees and are not legally defensible. “In progressive jurisdictions, courts have intervened in favour of protecting workplace romance, so long as it does not affect work performance,” he stated.
The judge concluded that the evidence presented did not justify MN’s termination.
He emphasised the potential benefits of workplace romance, suggesting that it could even strengthen company dynamics and morale.
Adopted from The Standard, Kenya