https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1698

Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers v National Museums of Kenya (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 2222 of 2015) [2026] KEELRC 1698 (KLR) (19 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1698 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi Employment and Labour Relations Cause 2222 of 2015 JW Keli, J June 19, 2026 Between Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers Claimant and National Museums of Kenya Respondent Judgment 1.On the 29th July 2024, Justice Nderi Nduma (as he then was) delivered a partial judgment in the suit as follows- ‘Accordingly, the court makes the following final orders: -(a)The parties to finalise all non-controversial provisions of the CBA for the period 2013-2017 and present the CBA to Court for registration within 30 days of the Judgment.(b)The parties to submit the contentious proposals of the draft CВА (for the period 2013-2017 to the SRC and CPMU, at the Ministry of labour and Social Protection for evaluation and SRC and CPMU to present reports to court for consideration in the event the matters are not settled amicably for final determination on the ability to pay by the respondent in terms of section 73(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 2007.(c)The parties to meet their own costs of the suit.Dated at Nairobi this 29th day of July, 2024Mathews Nderi NdumaJudge’’ 2.In compliance with Order B above, the Salaries Remuneration Commission filed their report dated 16th December 2025 and made the following recommendation on the 2 items- ‘The Salaries and Remuneration Commission, therefore, makes the following recommendations on the contentious issues:i.General Wage Increase Given that the National Treasury has not confirmed allocation of the required additional funding, the Court should consider implementing a zero review on general wage increase.ii.Medical Risk Allowance The respondent should procure comprehensive staff medical cover for employees and dependents as an alternative to increasing the Medical Risk Allowance, subject to availability of funds.’ 3.The Central Planning & Projects Monitoring Department also complied and filed their report dated 26th February 2025 . The conclusion was as follows- ‘Conclusioni.The Respondent is a State Corporation which draws its funding from the Exchequer that caters for the staff salaries. Other operations and maintenance costs are catered for from the internally generated revenue.ii.The fact that there are only two items for determination i.e. general wage increase and medical risk allowance implies that both parties are willing to achieve mutual consensus.iii.The Claimant demand for a 24.2% general wage increment for the four-year period would lead to an additional Wage bill-which the National Treasury is yet to issue a direction over it.iv.Further, the advisory from the Salaries and Remuneration Commission dated 18th March, 2019 advised the respondent to maintain the Status Quo of the contentious clauses unless cleared by it before submission to this Honourable Court for registration.In view of the above analysis, we hope that this report will be useful to the Honourable Court in arriving at a fair determination of the issue in dispute.’ 4.The respondent accepted the reports and stated the advice by the Commission was binding and relied on the Court of Appeal decision in Salaries and Remuneration Commission v National Hospital Insurance Fund Management Board and 2 others 2024 where the court held as follows-‘The Constitution set out the principles that SRC had to take into account before advising on the salaries of public officers. It was only SRC that had the mandate under the Constitution to ensure that the total public compensation bill was fiscally sustainable. The advice was guided by set principles. No other commission was given that mandate; it was only SRC. By advising the 1st respondent on the remuneration of its employees, SRC did not interfere with the functional and operational independence of the 1st respondent. The trial court erred when it held that the advice by SRC to the 1st respondent was not binding. By parity of reasoning, a court could not usurp the role or functions of a constitutional body unless that body had been found to have failed to carry out its functions.’’ The Court fund that the Supreme Court has since also determined an appeal on the decision of the court of appeal in National Hospital Insurance Fund Management Board v Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers & another; Attorney General (Interested Party) [2025] KESC 37 (KLR) where the court settled the question as to whether the advice by the Salaries Remuneration Commission on CBA negotiation is binding as follows-‘Regulation 21 of the Salaries and Remuneration Commission Regulations, 2013 provided that the 2nd respondent’s advice concerning the remuneration and benefits of all other public officers would hold and would only be varied under the provisions of article 259(11) of the Constitution. Therefore, there could not be any other rational conclusion than that the advice of the 2nd respondent was binding. The advice of the 2nd respondent was binding upon the appellant. In addition, the appellant ought to have sought the 2nd respondent’s advice before completing the CBA negotiations with the 1st respondent. Any CBA entered between the appellant and the 1st respondent, absent the advice and approval of the 2nd respondent prior to entering the CBA, was of no legal consequence.’ The decision of the Supreme Court is binding with finality. 5.I am thus not allowed to venture into the question of the merit of the advice by the Commission dated 16th December 2025. The nutshell of the advisory from the Salaries and Remuneration Commission dated 18th March, 2019, was that the respondent was to maintain the Status Quo on the contentious clauses. That meant zero increment on the 2 issues namely, general wage increase and medical risk allowance. The court adopts the advice of the SRC to effect of no increment of general wage and medical risk allowance in the 2013-2017 proposed CBA. The parties to conclude the CBA within the parameters of the CPPMD and SRC advisory. 6.Each party to bear own costs. 7.The file is marked as closed. 8.It is so Ordered. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.JEMIMAH KELI,JUDGE.In The Presence Of:Court Assistant: OtienoClaimant – MuundaRespondent – Ms Okello