Universal Corporation Ltd, a Kenyan pharmaceutical manufacturer, moved a senior manager from marketing to warehouse operations without training, setting him up to fail.
That was the blunt conclusion of the Employment and Labour Relations Court, which found Universal Corporation Ltd unfairly dismissed long-time employee Risa Sadera Erickson after placing him in a role requiring entirely different professional skills.
In a judgement delivered in late July 2026, Justice Nzioki wa Makau ruled that while the company observed much of the disciplinary procedure required under employment law, it failed to prove that Erickson deserved the ultimate punishment of summary dismissal.
Instead, the judge concluded that Universal Corporation’s own management decisions laid the groundwork for the employee’s eventual downfall.
Set Up for Failure
“The Respondent set him up for failure,” the court found after comparing the vastly different responsibilities of a Brand Manager and a Warehouse Manager.
The ruling awarded Erickson KSh4,431,655.20, comprising three months’ salary in lieu of notice, accrued leave and eight months’ compensation for unfair termination.
The company must also issue his certificate of service within seven days or pay a KSh10,000 daily penalty until it complies.
The dispute traces its origins to a corporate restructuring undertaken by Universal Corporation in May 2019.
According to the company, the brand management function had been transferred to its corporate headquarters in India, prompting Erickson’s redeployment from Brand Manager to Finished Goods Store Manager, later renamed Warehouse Manager.
Universal Corporation insisted the reassignment was legitimate and argued the new position did not fundamentally alter Erickson’s responsibilities.
It maintained he required no specialised training before assuming the warehouse management role.
Erickson painted a dramatically different picture.
Three-Day Notice
He told the court he received only three days’ notice before reporting to his new workstation, despite the company’s Human Resource Manual requiring fourteen days.
Promised training, revised job descriptions and essential system access never materialised, leaving him dependent on colleagues simply to perform routine duties.
What followed, he argued, was months of relentless scrutiny.
Management blamed him for warehouse shortcomings beyond his control.
Senior executives criticised his performance despite his lack of operational training.
Workplace relationships steadily deteriorated, culminating in disciplinary proceedings that ultimately cost him his career.
The breaking point came after Erickson informed senior managers through a WhatsApp group that he would miss a management meeting scheduled for November 30, 2019.
Soon afterwards, he received a show-cause letter accusing him of insubordination linked to a performance improvement plan.
Summarily Dismissed
A disciplinary hearing followed on January 6, 2020, before Universal Corporation summarily dismissed him on February 4, 2020.
His appeal later failed.
Universal Corporation defended every stage of the process.
The company argued Erickson’s dismissal had nothing to do with his performance ratings.
Instead, it accused him of repeatedly disobeying lawful managerial instructions, including refusing to attend the mandatory month-end management meeting despite direct instructions from the Managing Director.
It further argued Erickson frustrated the appeal process through unruly conduct before the appeals committee.
Justice Makau accepted that the company largely complied with the procedural requirements under Section 41 of the Employment Act, including issuing a show-cause letter, conducting a disciplinary hearing and hearing an appeal.
Yet procedure alone could not save the dismissal.
The court drew a careful distinction between procedural fairness and substantive fairness, explaining that employers must satisfy both before terminating employment lawfully.
On that second test, Universal Corporation fell short.
The judge devoted considerable attention to the striking differences between Erickson’s former and new positions.
A Brand Manager, the court observed, develops marketing strategies, manages public image and builds consumer confidence.
A Warehouse Manager instead supervises inventory, logistics, operational staff and supply chain efficiency.
Biased Disciplinary Panel
Those responsibilities require substantially different technical competencies.
Without adequate preparation, Justice Makau reasoned, expecting Erickson to excel was unrealistic.
“It is my finding that the Claimant was not properly trained for the role he was required to serve in,” the judge held, adding that Universal Corporation had effectively engineered circumstances that inevitably produced poor performance.
The court also questioned the neutrality of the disciplinary machinery.
Although hearings took place, Justice Makau observed that some individuals determined to remove Erickson remained active participants throughout the disciplinary process, creating an appearance that the outcome had already been influenced.
Still, the judgement did not entirely absolve Erickson.
The judge noted that his confrontational approach during the appeal contributed partly to the decision being upheld.
That finding persuaded the court to award eight months’ compensation, rather than the statutory maximum of twelve months.
The court rejected Erickson’s request for reinstatement.
Justice Makau concluded that relations between the former employee and senior management had deteriorated beyond repair.
Returning him to the workplace would likely create further conflict, while the statutory time limit for reinstatement had also expired.
Certificate of Service
Perhaps the sharpest criticism emerged over the company’s failure to issue Erickson’s certificate of service.
Universal Corporation argued throughout the proceedings that the document had always been available for collection.
However, the court found no evidence that management ever informed Erickson accordingly. Even after litigation commenced, the certificate remained unissued for years.
That omission prompted the unusual sanction of KSh10,000 for every day the company delays issuing the certificate beyond the seven-day deadline.
The decision reinforces a principle Kenyan employment courts have consistently emphasised: employers cannot rely on flawless disciplinary procedures if the underlying reasons for dismissal remain fundamentally unjustified.
The judgement also underscores that organisational restructuring, while lawful, does not relieve employers of their obligation to adequately prepare employees for dramatically different responsibilities before holding them accountable for failure.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.
