60 sue GDC over alleged discrimination, unfair labour practices

For months, employees of the Geothermal Development Company sought to have their issues addressed by the management, but their pleas fell on deaf ears.

Documents seen by The Standard indicate that the employees have engaged the GDC management regarding the grievances they have had, relating to their conditions of work, denied benefits, and injurious policies intended to humiliate, suppress, and degrade them.

They claimed that their cordial, peaceful, and solution-seeking attempts have been taken lightly, brushed aside, ignored, or left entirely unaddressed.

GDC, instead of addressing their grievances, resorted to silence and, at times, issuing express, implied, and subtle threats to those agitating for better working conditions.

Sixty (60) employees have now filed a suit in the Employment and Labour Relations Court seeking to have orders compelling the company to address their issues. They have named GDC and the Attorney General as respondents in the case.

The State Corporations Advisory Committee, Public Service Commission, and the Salaries and Remuneration Commission are named as interested parties.

“The Petitioners have, on several occasions, written to the 1st Respondent (GDC), expressing the grievances that have necessitated this Petition. The Petitioners have also requested meetings with the 1st Respondent in a bid to have the issues resolved amicably. The Petitioners’ correspondences with the 1st Respondent management clearly, expressly, and unequivocally express their displeasure in the manner in which the 1st Respondent has treated them,” read the suit in part.

In the suit filed through lawyer Morris Kimuli, the employees claim they have stagnated at an entry-level grade, and the policies now being implemented by the company will ensure that they remain at an entry-level grade. They noted that they had been serving as entry-level graduates at Grade 8.

In 2024, GDC developed a new structure that recognizes Grade 7 as the entry level grade for graduates. In March 2025, the 60 said they were moved to Grade 7 in what the company termed “re-designation and upgrade”.

“In reality, this was not an upgrade, because in the prevailing company structure, Grade 7 is now the entry-level grade for all graduates. This means that any graduate who joins GDC will be at the same grade as those who have served for over 10 years,” read the suit in part.

They noted that GDC’s Career Guidelines of 2024 provides for automatic upgrade (common cadre) to Grade 6 after one has acquired four years of experience at entry grade, the company has failed to apply the provision for their benefit.

The 60 said they have historically been unfairly treated and humiliated. They revealed that in January 2016, GDC gave an annual increment to all members of staff in the company, but denied them an increment.

They stated that despite their many years of experience as professionals, they now live with the indignity of being treated as fresh graduates, adding that they have lost the benefits and privileges which should naturally accrue to them on account of their qualifications and experience.

Before March 2025, they said they were entitled to and earned overtime allowances, but the company took away this benefit and replaced it with what they call “call-out allowances”, which is less than the overtime allowance they used to earn.

The employees said they used to enjoy a medical insurance benefit that covered their families up to six children. The benefit was, however, taken away and replaced it with a lesser cover for a maximum of four children. They said they now have to determine which of their children will be dropped from the medical cover.

The employees want the court to issue a declaration that GDC's decision to re-designate them as entry-level graduates under Job Grade 7 while they had already served for over 10 years in an entry-level grade was unfair, unreasonable, and constituted an unfair labour practice.

GDC, through its General Manager, Corporate Services Irene Onyambu, in a replying affidavit, said the company has not ignored the workers' grievances and was seeking to address them in a structured manner.

She noted that the employees have not exhausted the handling of grievances procedures contained in the company’s Human Resource and Procedure Manual 2024.

“The petitioners herein have therefore moved to court prematurely when the issues raised in the complaint were still pending determination by the Human Resource Management Committee and thereafter the CEO and finally the Board of Directors,” stated Onyambu.