[2018] KEELRC 2404 (KLR)
The court found that the Claimant Union failed to demonstrate that it had recruited a simple majority of unionisable employees as required by Section 54 of the Labour Relations Act. The check-off lists provided were unsigned and lacked personal details, rendering them insufficient as evidence of recruitment....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 2404 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kenya Long Distance Truck Drivers & Allied Workers Union; Respondent: Docwide Business Centre (K) Ltd
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 265 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- claim dismissed
- Judges
- J Rika
- Legal Topics
- Trade Union Recognition, Collective Bargaining, Union Membership Thresholds
- 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 Long Distance Truck Drivers & Allied Workers Union
Applicant
Docwide Business Centre (K) Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Claimant Union is entitled to an order compelling the Respondent to execute a Recognition Agreement.
- 2 Whether the Claimant Union demonstrated recruitment of a simple majority of unionisable employees as required under Section 54 of the Labour Relations Act.
- 3 Whether the check-off lists provided by the Claimant constitute sufficient evidence of union membership.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Claimant Union failed to demonstrate that it had recruited a simple majority of unionisable employees as required by Section 54 of the Labour Relations Act. The check-off lists provided were unsigned and lacked personal details, rendering them insufficient as evidence of recruitment. Furthermore, the employees named by the Claimant were on fixed-term contracts that had expired and were not renewed, eliminating the substratum for recognition. As a result, there was no collective bargaining unit capable of being represented by the Claimant Union, and the prayer for recognition was without merit.
Court Disposition
claim dismissed
Orders
- The Claim is rejected in its totality.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT & LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT MOMBASA
CAUSE NUMBER 265 OF 2016
BETWEEN
KENYA LONG DISTANCE TRUCK DRIVERS &
ALLIED WORKERS UNION...................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
DOCWIDE BUSINESS CENTRE (K) LTD........RESPONDENT
Rika J
Court Assistant: Benjamin Kombe
Ngoze & Ngonze Advocates for the Claimant
Munyao, Muthama & Kashindi Advocates for the Respondent
________________________________________
JUDGMENT
1. The Claimant Union filed a Statement of Claim on 30th March 2016. It seeks Judgment against the Respondent in the following terms:-
a) An Order do issue, prohibiting the Respondent from harassing, intimidating and/or otherwise unlawfully dismissing/terminating the Employees named at paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim.
b) An order do issue, compelling the Respondent to execute a Recognition Agreement in respect of Employees named at paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim.
c) An order do issue, compelling the Respondent to avail tabulation and accounts in respect of dues remitted in relation to Employees named at paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim.
d) Costs and interest.
2. The Respondent filed its Statement of Response on 11th May 2016. Response in general, denies the averments made by the Claimant in the Statement of Claim.
3. Parties recorded a consent order on 21st June 2017, to have the Claim considered and determined on the strength of the record.
4. They filed Closing Submissions, which were highlighted by Parties’ Advocates in Court on 13th November 2017.
5. The Claimant abandoned other prayers, and only pursues the prayer on Recognition Agreement.
The Court Finds:-
7. The remaining prayer on recognition has no merit.
8. The Claimant did not show what percentage of Unionisable Employees was represented by the Employees named at paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim.
9. The check-off lists attached to the Claim are not signed by the Employees. They do not show Employees’ personal details. They cannot be accepted by the Court as evidence of recruitment of the Employees as Members of the Claimant Union.
10. The named Employees served under 1 year contracts, which expired on 24th April 2016. There contracts were not renewed. Considering that recognition is sought based on particular Employees, whose contracts expired, and were not renewed, there is no substratum upon which recognition can be granted. Recognition under Section 54 of the Labour Relations Act is granted where a Trade Union has demonstrated it has recruited a simple majority of Unionisable Employees. The Claimant has not shown it has, or had, recruited a simple majority at any one time. There is no collective bargaining unit capable of being represented by the Claimant Union.
IT IS ORDERED:-
a) The Claim is rejected in its totality.
b) No order of the costs.
Dated and delivered at Mombasa this 23rd day of February 2018.
James Rika
Judge