The Employment and Labour Relations Court has dismissed a claim by 29 Bird Scouts employed by the Kenya Airports Authority (KAA) who were seeking more than Sh66 million in alleged backdated salaries and allowances.
In the ruling, Jacob Gakeri held that the case was unsustainable and lacked evidentiary support, finding that KAA lawfully implemented its job grading and remuneration structure.
The court struck out the claim in its entirety and ordered each party to bear its own costs, effectively closing the door on the Bird Scouts’ financial demands.
Bird Scouts’ Claim
The claimants argued that KAA promoted them from Job Group S3 to S4 in May 2024 and that their salaries and allowances should have been backdated to their respective dates of confirmation.
They contended that KAA had allegedly extended similar backdated benefits to firefighters and security wardens, and that denying them comparable treatment amounted to discrimination.
The Bird Scouts told the court that they were employed between 2007 and 2016 and deployed across major airports, including Jomo Kenyatta International Airport, where they manage birds and wildlife to mitigate aviation risks.
They further claimed that despite undertaking short regulatory courses and earning certificates, their career progression and pay lagged behind other staff performing what they termed comparable duties.
KAA’s Defence
KAA rejected the discrimination claims, maintaining that Bird Scouts perform a distinct role that does not carry the same level of risk, training, or responsibility as firefighters or security wardens.
The authority argued that the promotion of Bird Scouts to Job Group S4 was part of a new job grading structure rolled out across the organization and was applied lawfully and uniformly.
Why the Court Rejected the Discrimination Argument
Justice Gakeri found no evidence to support the allegation that firefighters or security wardens received backdated salaries upon promotion.
The court examined appointment letters, promotion records, and KAA’s organizational structure, concluding that the Bird Scouts’ comparison was speculative and unsupported.
The court held that equal pay claims must be grounded in genuine role comparability, noting that similarity of workplace or general job titles is insufficient.
Without proof of unequal treatment, the discrimination claim collapsed.
Training and Risk Levels Were Not Comparable
The court placed significant weight on differences in training requirements, risk exposure, and responsibility.
KAA demonstrated that firefighters and security wardens undergo specialized certification courses and at least one year of structured on-the-job training before confirmation at Job Group S4.
By contrast, Bird Scouts require a basic O-level certificate and computer literacy, with duties primarily focused on wildlife control rather than emergency response or security enforcement.
Justice Gakeri ruled that these differences justify separate career paths and pay structures, and that the roles cannot attract equal remuneration under the law.
Implications of the Ruling
The judgment reinforces the principle that pay parity claims in the public sector must be supported by clear evidence and true comparability of roles.
It affirms the authority of public institutions to implement structured job grading reforms, while warning employee groups against pursuing costly litigation without solid proof.
Legal observers say the decision signals a firmer judicial stance on discrimination and equal-pay claims within state agencies.