Risks of sacking ‘poor performers’

A precedent-setting judgment from a court is expected to tip the scales in favor of workers who have been fired for subpar performance
It was noted that, especially when the employee has indicated areas that, if left in employment, can assist them attain their goals, employers can no longer overlook the causes for below-average performance.
The Employment and Labour Court held that an employer would be unreasonable if they failed to consider a worker’s complaints about the workplace, which could have contributed to their subpar performance.
Even after making valid complaints or grievances in accordance with the Employment Act’s requirements, National Bank terminated Vincent Namai in an unfair manner, according to Justice Byram Ongaya.
His scores of subpar results were treated as if they didn’t exist, rather than the lender peacefully addressing the problems brought up by the former branch manager.
“On the whole, the Court returns that the petition was well grounded upon the material before the court and it has been established accordingly,” the judge remarked as he demanded that the lender pay him Ksh5 million in damages for the termination.
Mr. Namai was employed by the lender in 1995 as a clerical officer and progressed through the ranks to become a branch manager before being let go in January of last year, according to the evidence that was submitted to the court.
The court was informed that Mr. Namai served  admirably for 27 years and received promotions on the basis of merit. He served as a branch manager for NBK for seven of those years.
Trouble began when he was reassigned to the Kitengela branch in 2020 for a second time, but the performance was subpar in contrast to his first tenure, when his branch was one of the top five.
Mr. Namai was placed under a performance enhancement programme, but his results were ultimately found to be unacceptable.
The former employee said that his inability to succeed was caused by internal promotions without sufficient mentorship support and abrupt transfers from one branch to another, both of which failed to take his fundamental competencies into account.
The court stated that the Covid-19 pandemic broke out shortly after Mr. Namai was transferred to Kitengela in March 2020, making it challenging for him to manage the firm in the unsettling new environment.
Following his relocation, the branch he had previously ranked among the top five was suddenly underperforming, and the clients he had attracted had gone.
The judge claimed that although Mr. Namai brought up the issues throughout the hearings, the employer was only focused on the subpar performance.
According to Justice Ongaya, the proof of the employee’s subpar performance was due to the bank’s flawed operations, which were not the employee’s fault.