[2018] KEELRC 1791 (KLR)
The court held that the Claimant had not followed the statutory process for obtaining union dues, specifically the requirement under Section 50 of the Labour Relations Act for an order from the Minister. Furthermore, the existence of a recognition agreement with another union and the lack of proper conciliation...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 1791 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kenya Union of Commercial, Food & Allied Workers Union; Respondent: Ruthaka Farmers’ Co-operative Society
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 19 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Labour Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Application
- Outcome
- claim struck out with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- AN Makau
- Legal Topics
- Union Recognition, Union Dues, Demarcation Dispute, Collective Bargaining 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 Union of Commercial, Food & Allied Workers Union
Applicant
Ruthaka Farmers’ Co-operative Society
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Labour Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Respondent is obligated to deduct and remit union dues to the Claimant union pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the Claimant is entitled to recognition by the Respondent under the Labour Relations Act.
- 3 Whether the existence of a prior recognition agreement with another union precludes the Claimant's claim for recognition and union dues.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the Claimant had not followed the statutory process for obtaining union dues, specifically the requirement under Section 50 of the Labour Relations Act for an order from the Minister. Furthermore, the existence of a recognition agreement with another union and the lack of proper conciliation under Section 54(6) rendered the reference to court void. The court found that the dispute was a demarcation issue that should not have been brought before the court without exhausting the statutory procedures. Consequently, the memorandum of claim was rejected and struck out with costs to the Respondent.
Court Disposition
claim struck out with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The memorandum of claim is rejected and struck out with costs to the Respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT & LABOUR RELATIONS
COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI
CAUSE NO. 19 OF 2018
KENYA UNION OF COMMERCIAL, FOOD &
ALLIED WORKERS UNION.................................................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
RUTHAKA FARMERS’ CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY...................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Claimant/Applicant seeks the deduction and remittance of union dues from June 2017 to date pending the hearing and determination of the suit. The Claimant/Applicant asserts that the Respondent has declined to remit the union dues the members of the Claimant/Applicant despite deducting the same. The Claimant/Applicant asserts that it recruited 33 employees of the Respondent which is 51% of the employees of the Respondent and therefore is entitled to recognition by the Respondent. The Respondent asserts that there is a recognition agreement between the Respondent and the Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Union and that it cannot be forced to sign a recognition agreement with all the unions that demand recognition. The Respondent asserts that whereas it recognises the right of employees to belong to trade union of their choice, it also had a right to observe the previous recognition agreements and cannot afford to have different agreements with different unions on the same set of employees as this would breed chaos. It was asserted that once the employees signal their suspension of membership from the recognised society, the Respondent would then be in a position to negotiate a new contract. It was asserted that there was material nondisclosure in that there was already another union with rival contention that already has an executed CBA with the society.
2. This is a demarcation dispute that should not have come to court. Under Section 50 of the Labour Relations Act, the law is clear on the deductions that can be effected. I have not been shown any order by the Minister directing the deductions and designating the account to which the Respondent is to deposit the funds the Claimant seeks. The Claimant should have obtained the order from the Minister in order for it to claim the union dues it alleges are due to it. It is apparent there is another union on the ground and because there was a union in place, it matters not that the Claimant feels it is the proper union to be recognized. There is a process to obtain recognition that is set out under Section 54 of the Labour Relations Act which must be adhered to. As the Conciliator failed to initiate the conciliation required under Section 54(6), the reference to the court is void. I reject the memorandum of claim and strike it out with costs to the Respondent.
It is so ordered.
Dated and delivered at Nyeri this 10th day of April 2018
Nzioki wa Makau
JUDGE