[2022] KEELRC 12747 (KLR)

[2022] KEELRC 12747 (KLR)

The court found that the strike by the respondent's members was a direct result of the claimant's failure to provide adequate safety equipment and address legitimate workplace grievances during the Covid-19 pandemic. The court held that the unrest and withdrawal of services could not be blamed on the workers, as the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELRC 12747 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: County Government of Meru; Respondent: Kenya Union of Clinical Officers
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Employment and Labour Relations Cause E009 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Employment and Labour Relations Cause / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed with orders.
Judges
DKN Marete
Legal Topics
Industrial Action, Collective Bargaining, Disciplinary Proceedings, Workplace Safety, Unpaid Wages, Injunctions
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Industrial Action Collective Bargaining Disciplinary Proceedings Workplace Safety Unpaid Wages Injunctions

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

County Government of Meru

Claimant

Kenya Union of Clinical Officers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment and Labour Relations Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the ongoing strike by the respondent's members was illegal, unlawful, or unprotected.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was entitled to orders compelling the respondent's members to resume work.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was entitled to the counterclaim remedies, including declarations on disciplinary actions, reinstatement, and damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the strike by the respondent's members was a direct result of the claimant's failure to provide adequate safety equipment and address legitimate workplace grievances during the Covid-19 pandemic. The court held that the unrest and withdrawal of services could not be blamed on the workers, as the employer bore the responsibility for ensuring a safe working environment. The claimant's assertion that the strike was illegal and unprotected was rejected, as the evidence showed the employer's non-compliance with statutory and humanitarian obligations. The court further held that disciplinary actions, threats, and attempts to replace striking workers were unlawful and...

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed with orders.

Orders

  • The claimant's claim is dismissed with costs on a full indemnity basis.
  • Declarations issued that disciplinary and replacement actions taken by the claimant against the respondent's members for participating in the strike are unlawful, unconstitutional, and null and void to the extent that the strike has not been declared unprotected.