The court has delivered a crushing blow to a Ksh66 million pay claim by Kenya Airports Authority Bird Scouts. In a firm judgment, the Employment and Labour Relations Court rejected accusations of discrimination and unfair labour practices.
The ruling exposes deep flaws in the case and draws a hard line between job roles at KAA. It also sends a clear message to public sector workers pushing parity claims without proof. At the centre of the decision lies one key issue: KAA Bird Scouts Pay and whether it can legally match other high-risk airport roles.
Court Ruling Exposes Weaknesses in KAA Bird Scouts Pay Claim
Justice Dr Jacob Gakeri dismissed the claim filed by 29 Bird Scouts employed by the Kenya Airports Authority. The staff had demanded over Ksh66 million in backdated salaries and allowances.
The court found the case unsustainable and threw it out in its entirety. Justice Gakeri ruled that KAA lawfully implemented its job grading structure and salary adjustments.
He ordered each party to bear its own costs, closing the door on further financial claims.
The Bird Scouts had argued that KAA promoted them from Job Group S3 to S4 in May 2024. They insisted the authority should have backdated their pay to their dates of confirmation. They based this demand on what they described as similar treatment given to Firefighters and Security Wardens.
The claimants told the court that KAA hired them between 2007 and 2016. They said they worked across major airports, including Jomo Kenyatta International Airport. Their duties included managing birds and wildlife within airport grounds to reduce aviation risks.
They argued that KAA treated them unfairly despite undertaking short regulatory courses and earning certificates. They claimed their pay and career growth lagged behind other employees performing comparable work.
KAA rejected these claims and defended its pay structure. The authority maintained that Bird Scouts perform a distinct role that does not match the risk, training, or responsibility levels of firefighters or security wardens. After reviewing records, the court agreed with KAA.
Why the Court Rejected the Discrimination Argument
Justice Gakeri found no evidence to support claims of discrimination in KAA Bird Scouts pay. The court examined appointment letters, promotion records, and KAA’s organizational structure. It established that KAA promoted the Bird Scouts to Job Group S4 effective 1st May 2024.
The promotion followed the rollout of a new job grading structure across the authority. The court ruled that KAA applied this structure lawfully and consistently.
Crucially, the judge found no proof that firefighters or security wardens received backdated salaries. This failure weakened the Bird Scouts’ comparison and rendered it speculative.
Without evidence of unequal treatment, the discrimination claim collapsed.
The court also noted that equal pay claims must rest on comparable roles. Similar job titles or workplace locations do not meet this threshold.
Job Roles and Training Undermine KAA Bird Scouts Pay Parity Claim
The court placed heavy emphasis on differences in training, risk, and responsibility.
KAA demonstrated that firefighters and security wardens handle high-risk and specialized duties. These roles demand certification courses and at least one year of structured on-the-job training before confirmation at Job Group S4.
Bird Scouts, by contrast, require a basic O-level certificate and computer literacy. Their duties focus on wildlife control rather than emergency response or security enforcement.
Justice Gakeri ruled that these differences justified separate career paths and pay structures.
He concluded that the roles are fundamentally different and cannot attract equal remuneration under the law.
This finding dealt the final blow to the KAA Bird Scouts pay dispute.
What the Ruling Means for Public Sector Pay Claims
The judgment sets a powerful precedent for future pay disputes in state agencies. It reinforces the principle that equal pay claims must rely on clear evidence and genuine role comparability. Courts will not accept assumptions, generalizations, or emotional appeals.
For KAA employees, the ruling affirms management’s authority to implement structured job grading reforms. For unions and staff groups, it highlights the risks of mounting costly legal battles without solid proof.
The case also signals a tougher judicial stance on pay parity claims in the public sector.
