https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2404

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAIROBI** **PETITION NO. E273 OF 2025** **KENYA AVIATION WORKERS UNION PETITIONER** *VERSUS* **AFRICA GLOBAL LOGISTICS (KENYA) LIMITED RESPONDENT** **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is seeking the following orders: 1. *A declaration order that the respondent’s refusal and failure to give information requested by the petitioner in terms of the letter dated 20 may 2025 by the petitioner to the respondent stated above in the petition particularly paragraph 14 of the petition herein thereby impeding or obstructing negotiation and conclusion of a CEB between parties for the year 2024-2026 is an unfair labour practice ad a violation of article 24(1), (3), 36, 41, and 43 of the constitution and section 57(2) of the Labour Relations Act and is therefore illegal, unlawful, procedurally unfair, unfair labour practices, null and void.* 2. *An order of mandatory injunction directing the respondent, its agents, servants, officers and/or anyone claiming under them to forthwith fully comply with and provide to the petitioner the information stated above in the petition herein particularly paragraph 14 of the petition herein to facilitate negotiations and conclusion of the CBA between the petitioner and the respondent for the period between 31 July 2024 to 30 June 2026 within 30 days from the date of the order.* 3. *An order of injunction directing the respondent, whether by itself or authorized officers to execute the petitioner's proposed CBA between the petitioner ad the respondent for the period from 1 June 2024 to 30 June 2026 submitted to the respondent by a letter dated 24 September 2024 and acknowledged by the letter of the same date, and this be done in 45 days from the date of this order. In default, the Deputy Registrar of the Court be authorized to execute the CBA in place of the respondent after the petitioner's execution thereof.* 4. *Costs of the petition.* The petition is that the petitioner is a registered trade union under the Labour Relations Act (the LRA) and represents employees of the aviation and related services industry. The respondent is a limited liability company providing services in the aviation industry. The petition is that the parties have a Recognition Agreement dated 15 January 2015 with the respondent formerly known as Bollore Africa Logistics – Kenya. Consequently, the parties have negotiated several collective agreements (CBAs) for uninsurable employees in the respondent's service, each covering 3 years. Under clause 49 of the existing CBA executed on 18 April 2023 for the year January 2022 to June 2024, the terms were that it would continue to operate until the parties executed another CBA. There has been no new CBA since. The Cabinet Secretary for Labour in the National Government published a Gazette Notice in 2016 directing the respondent to deduct and remit agency fees from all unionisable employees of the respondent who are not members of the petitioner. The respondent remains bound under such Gazette Notice. Under section 5 and Part IV of the Employment Act (the Act), the law guarantees the protection of minimum terms and conditions of employment. At the same time, the Constitution provides an elaborate Bill of Rights that safeguards employees' fundamental rights and freedoms. Section 26 of the Act protects the better terms of employment of the petitioner members with the respondent; hence, the terms of the CBA providing better terms to the petitioner members apply to the said extent than the minimum terms in the Act.\ The petition is that the parties engaged in negotiations for a new CBA for the year 1 June 2024 until 30 June 2026, but which negotiations cannot constructively progress because the respondent has, in breach of the law, refused to provide necessary information requested by the petitioner to facilitate negotiations and agreement on fair and just terms of the CBA. By letter dated 20 May 2025, the petitioner requested the respondent for the following relevant and necessary information to facilitate effective and expeditious negotiations of the CBA: 1. Respondent’s total staff establishment indicating names of employees, their designations and grades, noting to include all employees in both management grades ad unionsable grades. 2. Total payroll per month for the entire respondent's establishment including permanent employees and fixed-term contract employees. 3. The percentage of the total payroll/wage bill per month in respect of all unionisable employees. 4. A list of all specific roles outsourced from third-party labour service providers. 5. Copies of contracts between the respondent and third-party labour service provides/outsources companies. 6. Names, designations and specific roles performed by employees in Grades B1, B2, and B3 in the respondent. By letter dated 4 September 2025, the respondent declined to provide the requested information, alleging that it constitutes personal data and that disclosure or provision of the same would be in breach of sections 25, 29, 30 and 72 of the Data Protection Act. The respondent has refused to share the information which is personal or unauthorised by law. The required information is necessary and required for effective negotiation and conclusion of the CBA required in terms of section 57(2) of the LRA and Article 35(1) (b) of the Constitution. This will enable the petitioner to negotiate and conclude the 2024-2026 CBA adequately and effectively. The required information is not exempted information under section 57(4) of the LRA. The required information is not proscribed under the Data Protection Act but is information necessary for the protection and advancement of equitable and legal claims and rights of unionisable employees under Article 41 of the Constitution and section 57 of the LRA. The respondent is legally bound to provide the petitioner with the requested information by reason of Article 35 of the Constitution and section 57(2) of the LRA. Section 51(2)(c ) of the Data Protection Act exempts the requested information from the provisions of the Data Protection Act, and the respondent’s refusal to disclose the information is unlawful and threatens further violation of the petitioner’s unionisable members' rights under Article 35(1)(c) of the Constitution. The petition is that the respondent's conduct constitutes a breach of the CBA, the law and the right to fair labour practices. The petitioner’s members and potential members will suffer miscarriage of justice and substantial loss due to the conduct of the respondent. On 4 November 2025, the petitioner lodged a dispute with the Minister for conciliation. No conciliator was appointed for the dispute as required under section 65(1) of the LRA. The respondent’s refusal to issue the relevant and necessary information is thus a violation of the petitioner's rights, and the orders sought should be issued. The petition is supported by the Supporting Affidavit of Moss Ndiema, the SG, who avers that he represents unionisable employees working for the respondent. The respondent, a limited liability company in the aviation and related sectors, directly and indirectly employs unionisable employees in its operations. The respondent was initially incorporated as Bollore Africa Logistics – Kenya before changing to its current trade name. As the recognised trade union, the petitioner has negotiated CBAs with the respondent. However, the last CBA end date was June 2024. Since then, the respondent has refused to provide the petitioner with the necessary and relevant information to negotiate a new CBA for the 2024-2026 period, thereby violating the petitioner’s rights. Through Gazette Notice No. 203 of 1 December 2016, the Minister allowed the deduction and remittance of agency fees from all unionisable employees who were not members of the petitioner. Such notice remains valid. The respondent has failed to provide the necessary information to enable the petitioner to negotiate the new CBA effectively, which is a gross miscarriage of justice. Ndiema avers that unless the records and documents sought in the petition are provided, the new CBA negotiations will deny the petitioner the necessary details, hence cause injustice. The reliance on the Data Protection Act is incorrect, as the details sought are lawful and premised on the LRA and the Constitution. In reply, the respondent filed the Replying Affidavit of Mary Chemas, the human resources manager and averred that the allegations made in the petition that there are constitutional and statutory violations and refusal to disclose certain information about employees are not correct. The petitioner seeks declaratory orders that the refusal to disclose the information amounts to breach and that the respondent should be compelled to disclose the same. Chemas avers that the information sought by the petitioner includes the total staff of the establishment, including their names, job designation and roles, both management and unionisable grades and the payroll information. The petitioner also seeks disclosure of roles outsourced from third-party labour service providers and contracts signed with such parties. There is no doubt that the information sought includes information relating to persons who are not members of the petitioner as well as information relating to third parties. Chemas avers that the information sought by the petitioner is personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act. The information constitutes identifying the individual employees. Such disclosure is sought without the petitioner giving reasons for seeking the information and which information is personal. Not all employees are members of the petitioner or covered under the CBA to warrant a demand for disclosure of their personal information. For the outsourced employees, the respondent has no information or obligation to release any contracts with third parties. Consequently, in the letter dated 20 May 2025, the respondent, aware of the law, addressed the petitioner's request for information and relied on the Data Protection Act. The respondent offered to provide generic data to address the petitioner's needs without breaching the data subjects' rights. The same information has been applied in previous CBA negotiations. The petitioner is insistent on seeking information that the respondent is not obligated to issue under the law. Section 25 of the DPA obligates the data holder to ensure that any data collected shall remain for the purpose for which it was collected. Such cannot be disclosed. The respondent thus collected the data sought by the petitioner for employment purposes. Section 26 of the DPA requires that a data subject be informed of the use to which their personal data is put. Section 30 requires consent before use of such data. Section 37 of the DPA prohibits the application of personal data for commercial purposes or economic interests. These provisions draw from the Constitution's right to privacy under Article 31. Chemas avers that, while the petitioner seeks to rely on section 51 of the DPA, the exception is not applicable because the interests sought to be advanced are not for the general public but for a select category of persons employed by the respondent. Such information cannot be released except with the consent of the data subject. This is not the first time the parties have been negotiating a new CBA. The last CBA covered 2022 to 2024. The petitioner withdrew the proposed CBA due to unavoidable circumstances; the respondent is ready and willing to execute a new CBA, subject to compliance with the law and the Constitution. The orders sought should not be issued. On the petition, the petitioner submitted that the petition arises from the respondent’s unjustified refusal to furnish the petitioner with basic workforce information, specifically, the names, Designations, Specific roles, Grades, and Payroll details of the employees covered under the CBA. That this is in contravention of ongoing CBA negotiations for the CBA covering 2024-2026. The parties have a Recognition Agreement and have previously negotiated CBAs. The last CBA was executed on 18 April 2023 and ended in June 2026. The ending CBA allowed its application until a new CBA was registered. However, such a process is now hindered by the respondent, who has refused to provide relevant and crucial information about the shop floor that is central to the proceedings. The petitioner submitted that there is a right of access to information under Article 35 of the Constitution, as held in **Katiba Institute v President's Delivery Unit & 3 others [2017] KEHC 2183**. The court emphasised that the right of access to information, as set out in Article 35 of the Constitution, is a fundamental right, and any limitation thereof must be prescribed by law and necessary and proportionate to a legitimate purpose. The petition is also anchored under section 57 of the LRA. The law allows parties negotiating a CBA to disclose all relevant information to enable the trade union to negotiate the agreement effectively on behalf of employees. The employer is therefore not allowed to disclose legally privileged information, in contravention of the law or any private information about the subject employee. Any dispute relating to disclosure of the information can be filed with the Minister. If unresolved, the court has the jurisdiction to hear the same. Any breach of confidentiality is to be addressed by the court. The petitioner is therefore anchored in the Access to Information Act, which permits lawful access to information. The purpose for which the petitioner seeks information from the respondent is to secure the employee's rights to a CBA on terms and conditions of service. The refusal to provide the information thus violates articles 35, 36, and 41 of the Constitution. In **KUDHEIHA Workers versus BOM Dr Babla Diani Gils Secondary Schools [2025] KEELRC**, the court held that the employer who obstructs, frustrates or renders ineffective the collective bargaining process violates the Constitution and the LRA. In **Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Metal Crowns Limited [2023] KEELRC**, the court held that a recognised trade union is entitled to reasonable access to information during the CBA negotiations. The employer who fails to supply such information acts in bad faith. Therefore, disclosure of relevant information is an essential element of collective bargaining. The LRA places the burden on the employer to disclose to the trade union all relevant information that will enable the trade union to engage effectively in consultation and reach a CBA. The DPA does not shield the respondent, and its application in this case is unnecessary. Section 51 of the DPA gives specific exemptions from the application of data protection principles where the processing is necessary for the exercise of rights conferred by law. A CBA is a right under Article 41 of the Constitution and the LRA. The process of disclosure is lawful and permissible. Section 30 of the DPA provides that data may be processed without the data subject's consent where it is necessary for compliance with legal obligations. The obligation to collectively bargain is lawful, in good faith, and permitted under the LRA. In **Katiba Institute & 2 others**, the case cited above, the court emphasised the need for harmony between articles 31 and 35 of the Constitution regarding the rights to privacy and access to information. In this case, the obstruction to collective bargaining is in breach of section 57(2) of the LRA. Such is forbidden, as held in the **Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Metal Crowns Limited [2023] KEELRC.** The petitioner submitted that any claimed limitation must satisfy Article 24 of the Constitution. Under these provisions, the court must be satisfied that the limitation is justified in an open and democratic society. The purpose for the limitation must be reasonable and proportionate. Reliance on the DPA to restrict CBA negotiations is not a legitimate purpose. The petition should be allowed with costs. The respondent submitted that this is not a proper petition. A party alleging violation of constitutional rights must plead such violation with reasonable precision. We place reliance on the case **Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic [1979] KEHC 30 (KLR) (1979).** The same principle is reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in **Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 others [2013] KECA 445 (KLR).** The present Petition falls short of the requisite constitutional threshold. The Petitioner demands, without differentiation, the names, designations and grades of all employees in both management grades and unionisable grades, the "total payroll per month for the entire Respondent's establishment, and copies of all contracts between the Respondent and third-party labour service providers. The Petition, however, fails to establish any rational nexus between the information sought and the constitutional or statutory purpose for which disclosure is claimed. Beyond the bare assertion that the information is required to facilitate collective bargaining negotiations, the Petitioner neither demonstrates why the information of employees who fall outside the bargaining unit nor the disclosure of private commercial agreements between the Respondent and third-party labour service providers, who are not parties to these proceedings, are material to that purpose. This omission is particularly significant given that Clause 14 of the subsisting CBA confines the bargaining unit to unionisable employees in Grades A1 to A3. 13. Notably, the Petitioner has also failed to identify any deficiency in the information previously provided, which has satisfactorily guided the negotiation of prior CBAs. Such an undifferentiated, all-encompassing request bears the hallmarks that this Court has itself condemned in comparable petitions. In **Law Society of Kenya v Director of Public Prosecutions & 4 others (Petition 09 of 2019) [2025] KEHC 11980 (KLR),** the court dismissed a petition for want of precision. A blanket demand, unaccompanied by any articulation of the specific negotiating purpose that each category of information is said to serve, is precisely the "fishing expedition" that the courts have consistently declined to indulge. The Petitioner cannot be permitted to obtain, under cover of a constitutional petition, what amounts to a wholesale audit of the Respondent's entire staff establishment and its private contractual dealings with strangers to these proceedings. The Respondent submitted that Section 57(2) of the LRA obliges an employer to disclose to a recognised trade union all relevant information that will allow the trade union to negotiate on behalf of employees effectively. This is the sole plank on which the Petition rests, and it is read by the Petitioner in isolation, divorced from the balance of Section 57. That obligation is not open-ended. Section 57(4) of the Act provides: ***(4) An employer is not required to disclose information that–*** 1. ***is legally privileged;*** 2. ***the employer cannot disclose without contravening a prohibition imposed on the employer by any law or an order of any court;*** 3. ***if disclosed, may cause substantial harm to the employer or employee; or*** 4. ***is private personal information relating to an employee, unless an employee consents to the disclosure of that information.*** The information demanded by the Petitioner includes the names, designations and grades of individual employees, which falls squarely within Section 57(4)(d). No employee, whether unionisable or management, has consented to disclosure of their name, grade or designation to the Petitioner. The demand for the third-party outsourcing contracts falls, in turn, within Section 57(4)(b) of the LRA. The Respondent is contractually and statutorily precluded from unilaterally disclosing a third party's confidential commercial terms to a stranger to that contract. In **Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Hebatullah Brothers Limited [2019] KEELRC 699 (KLR),** the court addressed Section 57 of the LRA and held: *The respondent is directed to produce the audited financial statements for the past two (2) years (April 2016 – March 2018), the wage bill, the number of staff, both unionisable and management, and the salaries of the unionisable and lower-level management staff to the union within 30 days.* The Court found an outright refusal to negotiate, but the disclosure ordered was confined to aggregate financial and staffing data, categorised by grade, not to the names, individual designations or personal identifying particulars of any employee, management or otherwise. The Respondent's letter of 4 September 2025, offering precisely this species of generic, aggregated information by job grade, is therefore not an unlawful evasion of Section 57(2) of the LRA. It is what the law requires. The respondent submitted that Article 35(1) (b) of the Constitution entitles a person to information held by another person and required for the exercise or protection of any right or fundamental freedom. This right is neither unconditional nor unbounded. In **Farah Abdinor Ahmed v National Land Commission & 2 others, ELRC Petition No. 24 of 2014**, the court, in addressing the scope of Article 35, held that Article 35 also creates an obligation on the State to publish important information. This would comprise information that is of a public nature, information that is of public interest, and information that does not compromise the rights and privacy of third parties, such as personal details, commercial information, and confidential information. Information with regard to the safety of individuals and the protection of property, or information that is privileged. Thus, the right to invoke the coercive power of the Court under Article 35 is conditional upon the Court first interrogating the reasons proffered for any refusal. The petitioner does not set out the reasons for the coercive nature of the orders sought. Such is unnecessary. The respondent submitted that the right to privacy is protected under Article 31 of the Constitution. The right to privacy subsists within, and is not extinguished by, the employment relationship, as held in **Mwangi v ABSA Bank Kenya PLC [2024] KEELRC 2399 (KLR).** The Respondent’s refusal to disclose the requested information is firmly grounded in law as the Respondent is under a legal duty to safeguard the personal data of its employees and cannot lawfully disclose such data without consent or a valid legal basis. The Respondent’s actions are further justified by the constitutional right to privacy under Article 31, the provisions of the Data Protection Act and the provisions of the Labour Relations Act. The petition should be dismissed with costs. **Determination** The petitioner is seeking various declarations against the respondent on the basis that there has been a refusal and failure to provide the information requested in terms of the letter dated 20 May 2025, which refusal has impeded negotiations and the conclusion of a CBA for the year 2024-2026. The petitioner is thus seeking an order compelling the respondent to provide the information to facilitate the conclusion of the CBA. In the alternative, the court to direct the Deputy Registrar to execute the CBA for the period from 1 June 2024 to 30 June 2026 instead of the respondent. The respondent asserts that the parties have previously negotiated CBAs based on the information provided, that the new information sought is personal and protected under the DPA, and that there are no exceptional circumstances that would permit its disclosure without the data holders' consent. The respondent is ready and willing to execute the CBA for the period from 1 June 2024 to 30 June 2026, without disclosure and in accordance with the legal protections of the DPA. In negotiating a CBA, parties should read section 57 of the LRA in full. The basis of trade union negotiations with the employer is the Recognition Agreement; the next step is to negotiate a collective agreement setting out the terms and conditions of service for all unionisable employees covered by the Recognition Agreement. All unionisable employees at the shop floor are included. Those who are unionised enjoy the terms and conditions of employment and thus pay union dues. The unionisable but not unionised indirectly enjoy the terms and conditions negotiated by the trade union and thus pay agency fees in terms of section 48 and 49 of the LRA. For CBA negotiations, section 57 of the LRA requires the employer to disclose to a trade union all relevant information that enables the trade union to negotiate effectively on behalf of its members. Section 57(2) of the LRA is couched in mandatory terms: ***(2) For the purpose of conducting negotiations under subsection (1), an employer shall disclose to a trade union all relevant information that will allow the trade union to effectively negotiate on behalf of employees.*** The respondent asserts that the information sought by the petitioner is personal. Under the DPA, the subject employees have not consented to the sharing of their information and employment details. In **Kenya Medical Practitioners, Pharmacists and Dentists Union v Principal Secretary Ministry of Health & 3 others [2016] KEELRC 26 (KLR),** the court, in addressing the provisions of section 57(2), held: *For the Collective Bargaining Agreement to be before the court for registration, negotiations must take place beforehand. Such negotiations between the employer(s) and a trade union must be held in the context that the employer has to disclose all relevant information necessary and useful for the negotiations to have effect and pursuant to the provisions of section 57(2) of the Labour Relations Act.* This position is reinstated in [**Teachers Service Commission v Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT) & 3 others [2015] KEELRC 863 (KLR)**](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/863/eng%402015-06-30). The court emphasised that for meaningful collective bargaining to bear fruit, the employer must provide the trade union with all relevant information necessary for the negotiations. The essence of collective bargaining must thus be seen from the perspective of Article 41 of the Constitution. It requires fair labour practices. Part of the rights under Article 41(5) of the Constitution is the right to collective bargaining. Such a right can only be regulated or limited in accordance with the same Constitution as required under Article 24. Therefore, in balancing the petitioner’s right to seek all relevant information necessary to bargain for a CBA and the respondent's assertion that it is bound under the DPA and article 31 and 35 of the constitution in securing data subject rights, the court in evaluating the reasonableness and justifiability must consider the nature of the right; the importance of the purpose of the limitation; the nature and extent of the limitation; the need to ensure the enjoyment of the rights by any individuals does not prejudice the rights of others, and; the relation between the limitation and its purpose and whether there are less restrictive means to achieve the purpose. See **John Githua Mbate& 2 others v Registrar of Trade Unions & another [2018] KEELRC 1738 (KLR).** The petitioner is seeking the respondent to furnish them with basic workforce information, specifically; 1. The names, 2. Designations, 3. Specific roles, 4. Grades, and 5. Payroll details of the employees covered under the CBA. The respondent, in the letter dated 4 November 2025, acknowledged the need to provide all relevant information to enable the petitioner to negotiate effectively. However, under Article 31 of the Constitution, the right to privacy is secured, and under Sections 25, 29, 30, and 72 of the DPA, personal data is protected. The respondent also acknowledged that the disclosure of individual employees' names, designations and grades amounts to processing of personal data under the DPA. Such information is personal and hence private. However, the respondent offered the following: *… We are unable to share names or individually identifiable information. However, we can provide anonymised, aggregated information on the staff structure for unionisable employees, such as the number of staff by designation and grade. This approach aligns with the principles of data minimisation, necessity, and purpose limitation as contemplated under sections 25, 29, and 30 of the Data Protection Act.* From this response, the respondent offers to share the following: 1. An anonymised list. 2. Aggregated information on the staff structure for unionisable employees. 3. Number of staff by designation and grade. From the petitioner’s list, the differences are: 1. The names, 2. Payroll details of the employees covered under the CBA. Whereas an anonymised list of employees should cover all unionisable employees at the shop floor, the need to disclose the employee’s name is thus unnecessary. The list of all unionisable employees shall suffice. Equally, the payroll details of the employees covered in the CBA, upon provision of the list of employees, aggregated information on the staff structure giving the exact number of staff by designation and grade would give the petitioner the necessary details for negotiation. The establishment is well audited; the petitioner will be able to confirm its members and the non-members who are uninsurable, and, hence, the information on designation and grade, once provided, will suffice. However, the contestations herein with regard to the application of section 57(2) of the LRA should not be lost. The petitioner enjoys the right to fair labour practices and the right to negotiate a CBA under the protections of the LRA. The application of Article 31 of the Constitution, although this does not override any other right under the Bill of Rights, including the rights under Article 41 of the Constitution, should be recognised; labour relations are codified under the LRA. Hence, the application of the DPA or Article 31 of the Constitution does not take priority over Article 41 rights. The balance lies in ensuring fair labour relations by providing the necessary and relevant information to enable collective bargaining. Hence, the petitioner is not precluded from seeking the protection of the court where the information provided by the respondent is not in tandem with section 57(2) of the LRA. In **Banking, Insurance & Finance Union (Kenya) v Citi Bank, N. A [2022] KEELRC 1611 (KLR),** the court allowed the County Labour Officer to enter the shop floor and establish the number of unionisable employees subject to the CBA and payment of union dues or agency fees. Save for these proceedings, the petitioner's right to safeguard the recognition enjoyed with the respondent thus remains secured. Before conclusion, the respondent has challenged the fact that this is not a proper petition. However, the petitioner raises fundamental questions regarding the interpretation of the LRA vis-à-vis the rights under Articles 36 and 41 of the Constitution. The right to access necessary and relevant information in securing a CBA with the respondent, while the respondent asserts the rights under Article 31 of the Constitution and the DPA. The analysis above demonstrates the need to move the court by petition, rather than by an ordinary suit. The petitioner has also addressed the fact that the respondent hosts outsourced employees on the shop floor. The petitioner asserts that the contracts entered into by the respondent with these employees and the service providers should be dissolved. The respondent contests that it has no control over these agencies and third parties and hence cannot obtain information from them. Outsourcing labour is an acceptable labour practice. However, it should not be used to undermine rights on the shop floor or to run contrary to section 26 of the Employment Act. In [**Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union v Rea Vipingo Limited & another [2026] KEELRC 40 (KLR)**](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/40/eng%402026-01-22), the court held that, when employees are on the same shop floor, the employer(s) are bound by the applicable CBA operational therefrom. Any third-party engagements should take into account the operative CBA. This is to ensure and safeguard the sanctity of the due process undertaken in securing the CBA, in terms of sections 11, 13, and 26 of the Act, and section 48 of the Labour Institutions Act. Indeed, the third-party employees are at liberty to unionise. However, that right is regulated under the LRA, sections 11, 13, and 26 of the Employment Act, and section 48 of the Labour Institutions Act. Where there exists a CBA negotiated by the petitioner with favourable terms and conditions of employment, the more favourable terms apply. For unionisable employees who are not petitioner members as defined under the current CBA, agency fees are deductible by the employer and remittable to the petitioner pursuant to section 49 of the LRA. For the third parties allowed to place employees at the respondent shop floor, the unionisable employees thereof are subject to section 57(2) of the LRA, together with sections 11, 13, and 26 of the Employment and Section 48 of the Labour Institutions Act. The respondents enjoy the labour from these outsourced employees. The third parties shall disclose the necessary and relevant information about the outsourced employees to the respondent, as it is transmitted to the petitioner. On costs, parties being engaged in labour relations and negotiations for a new CBA covering 2024-2026, which ended in June 2026 and has since lapsed, no costs accrue. **Accordingly, judgment is entered herein allowing the respondent to issue the petitioner with records addressed in its letter dated 4 November 2025, including:** 1. **A list of all unionisable employees in the establishment and available at the shop floor, including outsourced labour by third parties. Such shall consist of:** 2. **An anonymised list.** 3. **Aggregated information on the staff structure for unionisable employees.** 4. **Number of staff by designation and grade.** 5. **The petitioner shall retain the right to move the court as necessary where the records supplied are insufficient and contrary to section 57(2) of the Labour Relations Act.** 6. **Each party to bear its costs.** **Delivered in open court this 14th day of August 2026** **M. MBARŨ** **JUDGE** **In the presence of:** **Court Assistant: Kemboi** **……………………………………………… and …………………………………..………**