[2024] KEELRC 2216 (KLR)
The court found that the Claimant had not met the statutory threshold of recruiting 50%+1 of the Respondent's unionisable employees as required by Section 54 of the Labour Relations Act. The Respondent provided evidence that only 8 out of 28 unionisable employees were members of the Claimant, which was not disputed...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELRC 2216 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers; Respondent: Maruti Office Supplies Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause E718 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- claim dismissed
- Judges
- L Ndolo
- Legal Topics
- Trade Union Recognition, Collective Bargaining, Union Membership Threshold
- 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 and Allied Workers
Applicant
Maruti Office Supplies Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Claimant union met the statutory threshold for recognition by the Respondent for purposes of collective bargaining.
- 2 Whether the Respondent was obligated to recognize the Claimant as a trade union under Section 54 of the Labour Relations Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Claimant had not met the statutory threshold of recruiting 50%+1 of the Respondent's unionisable employees as required by Section 54 of the Labour Relations Act. The Respondent provided evidence that only 8 out of 28 unionisable employees were members of the Claimant, which was not disputed by the Claimant. As the Claimant failed to provide contrary evidence or demonstrate that it had met the required threshold, the court held that the Claimant was not entitled to recognition by the Respondent. The claim was therefore dismissed.
Court Disposition
claim dismissed
Orders
- The Claimant's claim for recognition is dismissed.
- Each party will bear their own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers v Maruti Office Supplies Limited (Cause E718 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 2216 (KLR) (19 September 2024) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELRC 2216 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Cause E718 of 2020
L Ndolo, J
September 19, 2024
Between
Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers
Claimant
and
Maruti Office Supplies Limited
Respondent
Judgment
1. By a judgment delivered on 24th March 2022, I directed the parties to conclude the conciliation process as provided by the Labour Relations Act.
2. The Conciliator subsequently issued a certificate of an unresolved dispute on 16th April 2024 and when the parties appeared before me on 24th April 2024, it was agreed that the Respondent would deduct and remit union dues on account eight (8) existing members. It was further agreed that the dispute on recognition would be dispensed with by way of written submissions.
3. In its submissions, the Claimant accuses the Respondent of applying tactical strategies to avert recognition, through redundancies and refusal to renew contracts.
4. On its part, the Respondent submits that the Claimant has not met the threshold for recognition, by recruiting 50%+1 of the Respondent’s unionisable employees as its members.
5. The Respondent states that at the conciliation meeting, the Claimant presented a signed check off form for only 13 employees out of 28 unionisable employees. The Respondent adds that 5 out of the 13 members had left its employment on 31st December 2023, leaving only 8 employees as members of the Claimant.
6. Section 54 of the Labour Relations Act provides a clear criterion for recognition of a trade union for purposes of collective bargaining. The set threshold of 50%+1 is a matter of fact to be proved by the trade union seeking recognition.
7. In this case, the Respondent has provided the union membership within its unionisable establishment, which falls below the threshold of 50%+1 and the Claimant has not provided any evidence to contradict the Respondent’s position.
8. In the result, I find and hold that the Claimant has failed to establish a case for recognition. Its claim therefore fails and is dismissed with an order that each party will bear their own costs.
9. Orders accordingly.
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 19TH DAY SEPTEMBER 2024LINNET NDOLOJUDGEAppearance:Ms. Manene for the ClaimantMr. Owuor for the Respondent