The Court of Appeal has upheld the dismissal of several cash management officers by Wells Fargo Ltd after they downed tools while servicing ATMs, citing unresolved workplace grievances.
However, the appellate court found fault with the company’s disciplinary process, ruling that it was conducted hastily. As a result, the judges ordered Wells Fargo to compensate the affected employees with the equivalent of two months’ salary each.
The ruling overturned an earlier decision by the Employment and Labour Relations Court, which had declared the dismissals unfair and awarded each worker compensation amounting to 12 months’ salary.
The dispute dates back to December 2013 when the employees, tasked with replenishing ATMs and managing sensitive access codes, stopped working and demanded a meeting with management to address concerns over their working conditions. They cited long working hours, late-night assignments and a lack of transport arrangements after shifts that extended into the night.
According to court records, the workers reported for duty at 6am on December 5, 2013, but refused to proceed with their responsibilities until management addressed their complaints. They later told the court that they had repeatedly raised the issues without receiving a satisfactory response.
The employees further claimed they were briefly detained by police, served with show-cause notices and dismissed the following day.
Also Read: Gov’t Targets Sh1.42 Billion Annual Revenue From Reintroduced Tea Levies
Wells Fargo defended the terminations, arguing that the workers had engaged in an unlawful work stoppage that posed a serious threat to ATM operations and exposed both the company and its banking clients to significant risk. The firm also maintained that the employees retained sensitive ATM access combinations and declined to surrender them.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the company’s position, finding that Wells Fargo had valid grounds to treat the workers’ actions as misconduct. The judges noted that the employees openly admitted they had collectively refused to continue working until their grievances were addressed.
The court further observed that the workers held critical responsibilities involving ATM operations and confidential security codes, and that their decision to abandon their duties carried immediate operational consequences.
