Stephen Muthinzi was going about his job as a security guard at Windsor Golf Hotel & Country Club on August 16, 2018, when he stumbled on some documents in one of the meeting rooms.
The board of directors has just concluded its meeting and left.
But as the directors left, one of them inadvertently left some confidential documents in the room, and on checking, Mr Muthinzi picked up the documents and went through them but could not understand what the papers referred to.
Mr Muthinzi challenged his sacking but last week, Employment and Labour Relations Court judge Jorum Abuodha upheld termination stating that the reasons for his firing were valid.
“From the foregoing, the Court is satisfied that there existed valid reasons for the termination of claimant’s service and that the said termination was carried out through a fair procedure,” said the judge as he dismissed his petition.
The confidential documents he was accused of sharing with a colleague were board minutes on the human resource restructuring plan, the expected costs, the hotel liabilities, and the undertaking by the shareholders to inject more capital into the business.
The high-end hotel said sharing the information instead of protecting it was injurious and amounted to gross misconduct.
In his defence, Mr Muthinzi said he called Mr Kirui so that he could help him ascertain whether the documents were important before deciding whether to involve their supervisor.
He stated that he was the one manning the meeting as security guard and after the meeting, he discovered that some documents and others were left on the table and on the floor and had to check if they were important so that he could inform his boss.
Mr Muthinzi admitted that he read one document and could not understand it, hence the reason for calling his workmate.
He said he noticed that the document was dated August 8, 2018, which he said was a previous board meeting, and thinking it was outdated and had no value, he threw it in the dustbin.
The security guard said he went on with his businesses until August 30, 2018, when he was called by the chief security officer and asked about the highly confidential document.
The hotel management maintained that Mr Kirui was not authorised to see the document as anything of board level should not be shared with junior staff.
The court, however, heard that the document was not marked confidential.
Further, the court was informed that the room was not supposed to be cleaned and that the security guard was not supposed to enter or inspect it. His role was to lock the room after the meetings.
Windsor told the court that it followed the required procedure by giving the guard a show cause letter, which he responded to, attended the disciplinary hearing with a fellow employee, defended himself, and a verdict to dismiss him was reached as per available evidence of disclosure of a confidential document.
The court heard that the decision to show him the door was duly communicated to Mr Muthinzi and reasons well-articulated, for as the sharing of confidential minutes with a fellow employee with evidence being the recorded statements and the CCTV evidence, and disciplinary hearing evidence.
He was also given his terminal dues but he declined to accept it, stating that his sacking was unprocedural.
During the hearing, the guard confirmed that the letter of appointment prohibited the disclosure of confidential documents to unauthorised persons.
He, however, maintained that he was not warned that the documents left behind were highly confidential and that is why he called Mr Kirui to confirm if the document was important.
