[2024] KEELRC 209 (KLR)

[2024] KEELRC 209 (KLR)

The court found that the claimant union had demonstrated recruitment of more than 50% of the respondent's unionisable employees, satisfying the statutory threshold for recognition under section 54(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 2007. The respondent, despite being served, failed to respond or contest the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEELRC 209 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kenya Union of Domestic Hotels Educational Institutions And Hospital Workers; Respondent: Board of Management of Kapropita Girls High School
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Employment and Labour Relations Cause E048 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Employment and Labour Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application allowed in terms of prayers 3 and 4; costs in the cause.
Judges
HS Wasilwa
Legal Topics
Trade Union Recognition, Collective Bargaining Agreement, Union Dues Deduction, Unfair Labour Practice
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Trade Union Recognition Collective Bargaining Agreement Union Dues Deduction Unfair Labour Practice

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenya Union of Domestic Hotels Educational Institutions And Hospital Workers

Applicant

Board of Management of Kapropita Girls High School

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment and Labour Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

  1. 1 Whether the claimant union is entitled to recognition by the respondent under section 54(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 2007.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent should be compelled to sign the recognition agreement and commence collective bargaining agreement negotiations.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent should be restrained from victimizing or discriminating against union members on account of union membership.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant union had demonstrated recruitment of more than 50% of the respondent's unionisable employees, satisfying the statutory threshold for recognition under section 54(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 2007. The respondent, despite being served, failed to respond or contest the application. The court accepted the claimant's evidence of majority recruitment and the respondent's refusal to recognize the union, sign the recognition agreement, or commence CBA negotiations. The court also noted allegations of intimidation and non-remittance of union dues. On this basis, the court held that the claimant had established a prima facie case with a probability of success...

Court Disposition

Application allowed in terms of prayers 3 and 4; costs in the cause.

Orders

  • The respondent is restrained from victimizing, intimidating, coercing, harassing, disciplining, terminating or otherwise discriminating against the claimant’s members whose names appear on the check-off forms on account of their union membership, pending hearing and determination of the main suit.
  • The respondent is compelled to sign the Recognition Agreement without further delay.