[2020] KEELRC 1866 (KLR)

[2020] KEELRC 1866 (KLR)

The court determined that although technicians and engineers may be involved in the Respondent's drilling operations, the core business of the Respondent is in the water sector, classified under civil engineering works. The Union's constitution restricts membership to employees in general mechanical engineering and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELRC 1866 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Kenya Engineering Workers Union; Respondent: Drilling Spares and Services Ltd
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 1265 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judges
MSA Makhandia
Legal Topics
Union Recognition, Sectoral Union Eligibility, Labour Relations Act Compliance
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Union Recognition Sectoral Union Eligibility Labour Relations Act Compliance

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenya Engineering Workers Union

Claimant

Drilling Spares and Services Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Is the Kenya Engineering Workers Union the appropriate union to represent employees of Drilling Spares and Services Ltd.
  2. 2 Did the Respondent fail to comply with section 48 of the Labour Relations Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that although technicians and engineers may be involved in the Respondent's drilling operations, the core business of the Respondent is in the water sector, classified under civil engineering works. The Union's constitution restricts membership to employees in general mechanical engineering and metal and allied industries. Therefore, the Union is not the appropriate union to represent the Respondent's employees. As a result, the court found no merit in the Union's claim for recognition and declined to address the issue of compliance with section 48 of the Labour Relations Act, as it was rendered moot by the finding on union eligibility.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The Memorandum of Claim is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.