Job Evaluation for the Clerks of the County Assemblies

In what may be seen as a blow to the implementation of the Job Evaluation for the Public Sector, as far as clerks of the county assemblies are concerned, the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC), in Kamau Aidi and 46 others vs. Salaries and Remuneration Commission, ordered a permanent stay of the implementation of the Job Evaluation for the Public Sector in as far as it relates to the clerks of the county assemblies and the grading structure of the petitioners.
In a case presented by the 47 clerks of the county assemblies (the petitioners), it was sought, in the main, for determinations as to whether the administrative action and fair remuneration provided for under articles 47 and 41 of the Constitution has been abridged by a decision by the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) allegedly done without due regard to already existing grading structure approved, adopted and applied. The petitioners also sought to have a determination as to whether in exercise of its functions under the Constitution, the SRC can undertake job evaluation in respect of public officers and return a report that downgrades and lower certain cadres of public officers.
The petitioners also sought to have the determination as to whether the SRC had breached article 50 of the Constitution by undertaking the evaluation exercise and returning results without giving the petitioners an opportunity to be heard, and whether the SRC breached Article 230 (5) of the Constitution on the need to ensure transparency and fairness in job evaluation without fully involving the Petitioners.
The ELRC found and declared, firstly, that the SRC erred in banding the clerks of the county assemblies in band B and D of the Patterson classification instead of B and E3 and justified this finding on the ground that the clerk of the county assembly is not a middle level management but in the band of senior specialists and top executives. Secondly, the ELRC, found and declared that the job evaluation accorded opportunity to the petitioners to contribute and their involvement was as required by law. Thirdly, the ELRC found and declared that the clerks the classification at class D while other accounting officers and CEOs are placed at E was discriminatory and must be varied forthwith and fourthly, the ELRC found and declared that the downgrading and loss of remuneration of the petitioners was unlawful.