[2017] KEELRC 1110 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent did not validly revoke the recognition agreement with the claimant as required by law. The existence of a registered CBA with KUDHEIHA does not extinguish the claimant's recognition unless the claimant is validly and procedurally replaced. The respondent is therefore obligated to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELRC 1110 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kenya Union of Entertainment and Music Industry Employees; Respondent: Sports Stadia Management Board
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 1915 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
- Outcome
- application for review allowed in part
- Judges
- DI Wasike
- Legal Topics
- Union Recognition, Collective Bargaining Agreements, Conciliation Process, Union Dues, Agency Fee, Labour Relations Act Procedure
- 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 Entertainment and Music Industry Employees
Applicant
Sports Stadia Management Board
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent validly revoked the recognition agreement with the claimant.
- 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to continued recognition for purposes of CBA negotiations.
- 3 Whether the respondent is obligated to remit unpaid union dues and agency fees to the claimant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent did not validly revoke the recognition agreement with the claimant as required by law. The existence of a registered CBA with KUDHEIHA does not extinguish the claimant's recognition unless the claimant is validly and procedurally replaced. The respondent is therefore obligated to continue recognizing the claimant for future CBA negotiations and to remit unpaid union dues and agency fees for the period prior to the registration of the CBA with KUDHEIHA. The judgment of 27th May, 2016 was reviewed to reflect that the dispute had been overtaken by events, but the claimant's recognition remains unless lawfully revoked.
Court Disposition
application for review allowed in part
Orders
- The judgment delivered on 27th May, 2016 is reviewed to the extent that the dispute has been overtaken by the registration of a CBA between the respondent and KUDHEIHA.
- The respondent shall continue to recognize the claimant for purposes of future CBA negotiations until valid de-recognition in accordance with the Labour Relations Act.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NUMBER 1915 OF 2014
KENYA UNION OF ENTERTAINMENT AND
MUSIC INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES..................CLAIMANTS/APPLICANT
VERSUS
SPORTS STADIA MANAGEMENT BOARD.....................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. By a motion dated 17th November, 2016 the Claimant sought a review of the court’s judgment delivered on 27th May, 2016. In that judgment, the court observed that the issue of recognition was a preliminary factor which had to be resolved first before the court could consider the issues forming the substance of the dispute before it. The court therefore directed that the issue of recognition be resolved first under Labour Relations Act.
2. I have reviewed the report filed by the conciliator in this matter and noted the respondent herein failed to co-operate in the conciliation process forcing the conciliator to rely on affidavits and supporting documents filed by the respondent in this cause for background information.
3. Further the court has considered submissions by both parties and agrees with the conciliator’s observation that the respondent did not validly revoke the recognition agreement between it and the Claimant as required by section 54(5) of the Labour Relations Act. The respondent therefore lacked the capacity to enter into another recognition agreement with KUDHEIHA.
4. There is however a registered CBA between the respondent and KUDHEIHA. The registration was done on 8th July, 2015. The court will not disturb this status quo but will order that KUDHEIHA does not negotiate a new CBA upon the expiry of the current one. The Claimant unless validly and procedurally replaced shall continue to enjoy recognition for purposes of CBA negotiations with the respondent.
5. In conclusion the court orders as follows:
a. The judgment delivered on 27th May, 2016 is hereby reviewed to the extent that the dispute submitted to the court for resolution has been overtaken by events following the registration of a CBA between the respondent and KUDHEIHA.
b. The respondent shall continue to recognize the Claimant for purposes of future CBA negotiations until such time that Claimant shall be validly de-recognised in accordance with Labour Relations Act.
c. The respondent shall remit to the Claimant unpaid union dues and agency fee for the period of 2011 up to September 2015 when CBA with KUDHEIHA was registered.
It is so ordered.
Dated at Nairobi this 23rd day of June 2017
Abuodha J. N.
Judge
Delivered at Nairobi this 23rd day of June 2017
In the presence of:-
…….……………….. for the Claimant
……………………... for the Respondent
Abuodha J. N.
Judge