[2002] KEELRC 26 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent's persistent failure to file a reply statement or appear for the hearing, despite being given ample opportunity, left the union's claims unchallenged. The court accepted the union's memorandum as unopposed and found the demands to be justified and in line with established labour...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] KEELRC 26 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Bakery, Confectionery, Manufacturing & Allied Workers’ Union; Respondent: Mecca Quality Bakery Ltd
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 36 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Dispute / Final Award After Ex Parte Hearing
- Outcome
- Claims allowed as prayed by the union; award granted ex-parte.
- Legal Topics
- Terms and Conditions of Service, Leave Travelling Allowance, Night Shift Allowance, Housing Allowance, Minimum Wage, Collective Bargaining Agreement
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Bakery, Confectionery, Manufacturing & Allied Workers’ Union
Applicant
Mecca Quality Bakery Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Dispute / Final Award After Ex Parte Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent is obligated to pay leave travelling allowance as claimed by the union.
- 2 Whether the respondent is required to pay night shift allowance at the rate demanded by the union.
- 3 Whether the respondent must pay the specified housing allowance to employees.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent's persistent failure to file a reply statement or appear for the hearing, despite being given ample opportunity, left the union's claims unchallenged. The court accepted the union's memorandum as unopposed and found the demands to be justified and in line with established labour law principles and collective bargaining practices. Consequently, the court awarded the union's claims as prayed, including leave travelling allowance, night shift allowance, housing allowance, and minimum wage for specified categories of employees, all effective from 1st June 1997.
Court Disposition
Claims allowed as prayed by the union; award granted ex-parte.
Orders
- Each employee to be paid Kshs.1,250 as leave travelling allowance with effect from 1st June 1997.
- Each employee to be paid 30% of basic wage as night shift allowance with effect from 1st June 1997.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
59 paragraphs
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI.
(Before: Charles P. Chemmuttut, J.,
J.M. Kilonzo & A.K. Kerich, Members.)
CAUSE NO.36 OF 2001.
BAKERY, CONFECTIONERY, MANUFACTURING & ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION……………………....………………………Claimants.
-v -
MECCA QUALITY BAKERY LTD…………………………………………Respondents.
Issues in Dispute:-
Terms and conditions of service, consisting of:-
1. Termination of Employment.
2. Redundancy.
3. Warning
4. Serious Offences.
5. Duration of Working Periods.
6. Wage Rates.
7. Overtime.
8. Overtime (Gazetted Public Holidays).
9. Public Holidays.
10. Annual Leave.
11. Leave Travelling Allowance.
12. Compassionate Leave.
13. Sick Leave.
14. Maternity Leave – Female Employees.
15. Absenteeism.
16. Certificate of Service.
17. Effective Date and Duration.
18. Protective Clothing.
19. Medical Treatment.
20. Night Transport.
21. Retirement Age and Gratuity.
22. Housing Allowance.
23. Wages.
24. Letter of Appointment.
25. Death of an employee.
26. Night Shift Allowance.
27. Appendix “A” (Category D.).
28. Appendix “B”.
29. Appendix “C”.
G.M. Muchai, National Secretary General, for the Claimants, (hereinafter called the Union).
No appearance for the Respondents (hereinafter called the Company).
A W A R D.
On 28th March 2001, the Minister for Labour referred this dispute to the Court for consideration and determination under powers vested in him by Section 8 of the Trade Disputes Act, Cap.234, Laws of Kenya (which is hereinafter referred to as the Act). The reference, together with statutory certificate from the Labour Commissioner under Section 14, subsection (9)(e) of the Act, were received by the Court on 5th April 2001. The dispute was then listed for mention on 12th April 2001, when Mr. Muchai appeared for the Union but there was no appearance for the Company. In spite of the latter’s absence, however, the Union were directed to submit their written memorandum on or before 14th May 2001, while the Company were allowed to file their reply statement on or before 14th June 2001, and the dispute was fixed for hearing on 10th July 2001. The matter lingered on in Court until 15th November 2001, when it was brought up for another mention. On this occasion, Mr. Muchai again appeared for the Union but the Company persisted in their non-appearance. Since the Union did not submit their memorandum as directed hereinabove, the parties were, therefore, ordered to submit their respective memorandum and reply statement on or before 30th November and 31st December 2001, and the dispute was fixed for hearing on 5th March 2002. The Union belatedly submitted their memorandum on 5th February 2002, but the Company did not file any reply statement thereto.
On 5th March 2002, Messrs. Muchai and Salim Amman Said, who appeared for the parties respectively, informed the Court that they had settled issues Nos.1 to 10, 12 to 19, 21, 23 to 26 and 28 and 29, and requested for an adjournment to enable them explore the possibility of an amicable settlement or compromise of the remaining issues, i.e. Nos.11, 20, 22 and 27. The request or application for adjournment was granted; and by mutual agreement of the parties, the dispute was fixed for hearing on 4th June 2002, if the need arose. Meanwhile, the Company were allowed to file their reply statement, if any, on or before 15th April 2002. They neither filed their reply statement nor appeared in Court for hearing on the said date, i.e. 4th June 2002, and no reasons were given or forthcoming for their default. The matter was, therefore, heard ex-parte.
Since the Company have neither filed their reply statement to the Union’s memorandum nor appeared on 4th June 2002 during the hearing of the dispute, the demands are allowed as prayed for by the Union, and I award as follows:-
1. Clause II: Leave Travelling Allowance.
An employee be paid Kshs.1,250/= as leave traveling allowance with effect from 1st June 1997.
2. Clause 20: Night Shift Allowance.
An employee be paid 30% of his or her basic wage as night shift allowance with effect from 1st June 1997.
3. Clause 22: Housing Allowance. An employee be paid Kshs.1. 200/= per month as housing allowance with effect from 1st June 1997.
4. Clause 27: Appendix “A”, Category D – Minimum wage for a Single
Hand Baker or Confectioner, Overman and Charge Hand Baker.
A Single Hand Baker or Confectioner, Overman and Charge Hand Baker
be paid a minimum wage of Kshs.3,448/= per month with effect from 1st June 1997.
I so order.
MEMBERS– We agree.
DATED and delivered at Nairobi this 17th day of July 2002.
Charles P. Chemmuttut,
JUDGE.