[2018] KEELRC 291 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 291 (KLR)

The court found that the original judgment contained a clerical error regarding the existence of a recognition agreement. The correct legal position is that there is no valid recognition agreement between the respondent and the Interested Party, and therefore, the respondent lacks capacity to negotiate or register a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELRC 291 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Kenya Aviation Workers Union; Respondent: Bollore Africa Logistics Limited; Interested Party: Aviation and Airport Services Workers Union (K)
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 2343 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Labour Cause / Corrigenda Ruling
Outcome
Application for correction allowed. Judgment corrected to reflect the true legal position regarding recognition agreements and collective bargaining.
Judges
DO Ogal
Legal Topics
Collective Bargaining Agreements, Recognition Agreements, Trade Union Rights
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Collective Bargaining Agreements Recognition Agreements Trade Union Rights

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenya Aviation Workers Union

Claimant

Bollore Africa Logistics Limited

Respondent

Aviation and Airport Services Workers Union (K)

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Labour Cause / Corrigenda Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the respondent has capacity to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the Interested Party in the absence of a valid recognition agreement between them.
  2. 2 Whether negotiations or registration of a CBA between the respondent and Interested Party are valid while a recognition agreement exists between the claimant and respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the original judgment contained a clerical error regarding the existence of a recognition agreement. The correct legal position is that there is no valid recognition agreement between the respondent and the Interested Party, and therefore, the respondent lacks capacity to negotiate or register a collective bargaining agreement with the Interested Party. The court exercised its power to correct the record to reflect this, and reaffirmed the injunction stopping the respondent from negotiating or registering any CBA with the Interested Party for as long as a valid recognition agreement exists between the claimant and the respondent.

Court Disposition

Application for correction allowed. Judgment corrected to reflect the true legal position regarding recognition agreements and collective bargaining.

Orders

  • The paragraph in the judgment stating there is no valid recognition agreement between the claimant and respondent is deleted and replaced with a paragraph stating there is no valid recognition agreement between the respondent and the Interested Party.
  • An injunction is issued stopping the respondent from negotiating or registering any collective bargaining agreement between the respondent and the Interested Party for as long as there is a valid recognition agreement between the claimant and the respondent.