[2017] KEELRC 398 (KLR)
The court found that the claimant union lacked standing to sue on behalf of the grievants because, on a balance of probabilities, the grievants were not members of the union at the time of their termination. The only witness for the claimant admitted joining the union after termination and did not pay union dues....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELRC 398 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kenya Building, Construction, Timber & Furniture Industries Employees Union; Respondent: Kafunapasa Company Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 95 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- claim dismissed with costs
- Judges
- B Ongaya
- Legal Topics
- Trade Union Standing, Unlawful Termination, Seasonal Employment, Recognition 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
Kenya Building, Construction, Timber & Furniture Industries Employees Union
Applicant
Kafunapasa Company Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant union had standing to sue on behalf of the grievants.
- 2 Whether the grievants were members of the claimant union at the time of termination.
- 3 Whether the termination of the grievants was unlawful.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the claimant union lacked standing to sue on behalf of the grievants because, on a balance of probabilities, the grievants were not members of the union at the time of their termination. The only witness for the claimant admitted joining the union after termination and did not pay union dues. Additionally, there was no recognition or collective agreement between the parties, and the union lacked statutory authority to bring the claim. Consequently, the suit failed for want of a proper claimant, and the court declined to investigate the other issues raised.
Court Disposition
claim dismissed with costs
Orders
- The claimant’s suit is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI
CAUSE NO. 95 OF 2014
KENYA BUILDING, CONSTRUCTION,
TIMBER & FURNITURE INDUSTRIES
EMPLOYEES UNION......................................... CLAIMANT
VERSUS
KAFUNAPASA COMPANY LIMITED.............. RESPONDENT
(Before Hon. Justice Byram Ongaya on Friday, 24th November, 2017)
JUDGMENT
The claimant trade union filed the memorandum of claim on 15. 08. 2014 claiming unlawful dismissal of 15 employees (the grievants) previously in the respondent’s employment. The claimant’s case was that the grievants were its members but there was no recognition and collective agreement between the parties.
It is the claimant’s case that the grievants being in the respondent’s employment broke for Christmas holidays in December 2011 and upon resuming duty on 04. 01. 2012, they were informed that their services were no longer required and they were thereby removed from employment. The conciliation proceedings failed to yield amicable settlement hence the filing of the suit. The claimant prays for judgment against the respondent to pay each grievant pay in lieu of notice; earned leave; service gratuity; underpaid wages; and compensation for unlawful loss of jobs. The amount due to each of the 15 grievants has been computed and specifically pleaded in the memorandum of claim. The claimant also prays for a certificate of service in favour of each grievant and costs of the suit. The terminal dues are in the sum of Kshs. 392, 130. 00 for all the 15 grievants. Francis K. Murage, the claimant’s General Secretary signed the memorandum of claim. The claimant’s case was that the claimants were removed from employment on account of their signing to join the claimant trade union.
The response to the claim was filed on 05. 09. 2014 through Joan W.G. Ndorongo & Company Advocates. The respondent prayed that the claimant’s suit be dismissed with costs and interest.
The respondent’s case was that the claimants were seasonal employees hired from time to time when there was some work to be carried out. Further the respondent denied that the claimants were terminated on account of joining the trade union.
First, it is submitted for the claimant that the grievants signed the check off Form S on deduction of union dues on 20. 12. 2011 and on 01. 08. 2012 and the same signed by the claimant’s Secretary General on 26. 01. 2012. It is then submitted that the termination was on 01. 04. 2012 (and not 04. 01. 2012 as was pleaded at paragraph 7 of the memorandum of claim). Claimant Witness No. 1 (CW1) stated that he joined the union after termination on 04. 01. 2012 and he did not pay union dues at all. CW1 was the only claimants’ witness. By his testimony, the court returns that on a balance of probability, all the grievants were not members of the claimant trade union as at the time of their termination and accordingly, the claimant union lacked standing to sue on their behalf. In any event there was no recognition and collective agreement between the parties and even if the respondent employed the grievants, the union lacked privity or statutory underpinning to sue in that regard. The suit would therefore collapse for want of a proper party as claimant. In such circumstances, the court will not investigate the other matters in dispute but at the same time, return that the claimant failed to testify to establish the alleged employment relationship.
In conclusion, the claimant’s suit is hereby dismissed with costs.
Signed, datedanddeliveredin court atNyerithisFriday, 24th November, 2017.
BYRAM ONGAYA
JUDGE