The Employment and Labour Relations Court in Kenya has ruled that a policy by an employer forbidding workplace romance is unconstitutional, in ELRC_Case_232_2021.
While the Court acknowledged that there are valid reasons for an employer to maintain such policies, it held that such policies violate Article 25 (freedom from cruel or degrading treatment), Article 28 (right to dignity), and Article 31 (right to privacy).
Did the court stretch these constitutional provisions, in particular, Articles 25 and 28, too far and well beyond what the intent of these Articles is?
1 Comment
Robin
“Friction between the lovers may poison the work environment and affect productivity”..”….the eternal law of attraction”…such excerpts indicate the judge is aware of the human heart. It shows too in the reasoning, barring humans from following their hearts is inhuman, cruel and diminishes what is considered as essentially human
I see an important question of separating a potentially awkward sexual situation from sexual harassment.
Constitutional interpretation should have comprehensive scope, that entrench these fundamental principles.