[2023] KEELRC 1677 (KLR)

[2023] KEELRC 1677 (KLR)

The court found that the claimant had provided sufficient evidence of recruiting 722 unionisable employees, including check off forms and a ministerial order, and that the respondent failed to provide credible evidence to dispute the claimant's majority or the validity of the recruitment process. The respondent's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELRC 1677 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kenya Petroleum Oil Workers Union; Respondent: Proto Energy Ltd
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Employment and Labour Relations Cause E331 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Employment and Labour Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
AN Mwaure
Legal Topics
Trade Union Recognition, Union Dues Deduction, Collective Bargaining, Ministerial Orders
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Trade Union Recognition Union Dues Deduction Collective Bargaining Ministerial Orders

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenya Petroleum Oil Workers Union

Applicant

Proto Energy Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment and Labour Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should be compelled to deduct and remit union dues for the claimant's members.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent should be compelled to provide a list of unionisable employees to the claimant.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent should be compelled to sign the recognition agreement in accordance with section 54 of the Labour Relations Act, 2007.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant had provided sufficient evidence of recruiting 722 unionisable employees, including check off forms and a ministerial order, and that the respondent failed to provide credible evidence to dispute the claimant's majority or the validity of the recruitment process. The respondent's refusal to deduct and remit union dues, provide the list of unionisable employees, and sign the recognition agreement was not justified in law. The court held that the statutory and constitutional requirements for recognition and deduction of union dues had been met, and the respondent's actions amounted to a violation of the claimant's and employees' rights under the Labour...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The respondent is compelled to deduct and remit to the claimant union dues for all the 722 members who are the respondent’s employees.
  • The respondent is compelled to avail the list of unionisable employees to the claimant.