[2017] KEELRC 1641 (KLR)

[2017] KEELRC 1641 (KLR)

The court found that the grievants were employees of the Respondent based on their consistent testimony, the Respondent's admission of undertaking the VIC Hotel project, and the Respondent's failure to produce employment records or disprove the claimant's case. The Respondent's argument that the workers were not its...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELRC 1641 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Kenya Building, Construction Timberland Furniture Industries Employees Union; Respondent: Shiloah Investment Ltd
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 91 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
Claim partly allowed.
Judges
DO Ogal
Legal Topics
Termination of Employment, Redundancy, Employment Records, Wages and Remuneration, Trade Union Rights
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Termination of Employment Redundancy Employment Records Wages and Remuneration 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenya Building, Construction Timberland Furniture Industries Employees Union

Claimant

Shiloah Investment Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the grievants were employees of the Respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the grievants were unfairly terminated from employment.
  3. 3 Whether the grievants are entitled to the reliefs sought including notice pay, pro-rata leave, underpayments, and compensation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the grievants were employees of the Respondent based on their consistent testimony, the Respondent's admission of undertaking the VIC Hotel project, and the Respondent's failure to produce employment records or disprove the claimant's case. The Respondent's argument that the workers were not its employees was rejected, as the law deems the principal employer responsible even where work is subcontracted. The court held that the termination was unfair as it was not justified and was linked to union membership, and that the grievants were entitled to notice pay, pro-rata leave, and underpayments as per the Regulation of Wages Order. However, compensation for unfair...

Court Disposition

Claim partly allowed.

Orders

  • The Respondent shall pay each grievant the specified sums for notice, pro-rata leave, and underpayments as detailed in the judgment.
  • The Respondent shall pay the claimant Kshs. 50,000 as reasonable expenses and disbursements.