[2019] KEELRC 698 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent union had not complied with the mandatory dispute resolution procedures under the Labour Relations Act before issuing the strike notice, as there was no recognition agreement or collective bargaining agreement between the parties. The respondent failed to report a dispute for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELRC 698 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Nzoia Water Services Company Limited; Respondent: Kenya County Government Workers Union
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 63 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunctive Relief
- Outcome
- interim injunction granted; strike action restrained pending suit determination
- Judges
- MN Nduma
- Legal Topics
- Recognition Agreement, Collective Bargaining Agreement, Strike Notice, Union Deductions, Labour Relations Act, Injunctive Relief
- 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
Nzoia Water Services Company Limited
Applicant
Kenya County Government Workers Union
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunctive Relief
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent union's strike notice is lawful in the absence of a recognition agreement and collective bargaining agreement.
- 2 Whether the respondent union followed the statutory dispute resolution procedures under the Labour Relations Act before issuing the strike notice.
- 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to injunctive relief restraining the strike action pending determination of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent union had not complied with the mandatory dispute resolution procedures under the Labour Relations Act before issuing the strike notice, as there was no recognition agreement or collective bargaining agreement between the parties. The respondent failed to report a dispute for conciliation or seek court intervention as required by law. Issuing a strike notice in these circumstances was held to be in violation of express statutory provisions. Consequently, the applicant satisfied the legal threshold for injunctive relief, and the interim orders previously granted were confirmed, restraining the respondent and its members from taking any strike action...
Court Disposition
interim injunction granted; strike action restrained pending suit determination
Orders
- The respondent and/or its members employed by the claimant are restrained from taking any strike action according to the strike notice dated 25th October 2018 issued by the respondent pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT BUNGOMA
CAUSE NO. 63 OF 2018
(Before Hon. Justice Mathews N. Nduma)
NZOIA WATER SERVICES COMPANY LIMITED................CLAIMANT/APPLICANT
VERSUS
KENYA COUNTY GOVERNMENT WORKERS UNION...........................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The application dated 5th November 2018 seeks for orders interalia:
(a) Restraining the Respondent or its officials and agents from inciting employees of the applicant to take part in a strike in terms of a seven days’ notice issued by the respondent union dated 25th October 2018.
(b) That the respondents be restrained from making demands to the claimant until the parties sign a Recognition Agreement and a Collective Agreement.
(c) That the court do declare the intended strike notice illegal and/or unprotected.
2. The application is based on grounds set out in the Notice of Motion and numbered 1-9 the nub of which is that the intended strike notice is unlawful since the parties have no Recognition Agreement nor a Collective Bargaining Agreement. The application is further buttressed by a supporting affidavit of the Acting Managing Director Mr. Kennedy W. Kilaci.
3. The application is opposed vide a replying affidavit of Michael Mutahi Wachira, the National treasurer of the Respondent Union. From the deposition in the replying affidavit, it is clear that the respondent union had recruited employees of the claimant as its members. That the claimant union submitted forms to the Ministry to obtain authority for deduction of union dues from the salary of its members by the claimant.
4. That the Minister of Labour authorized deduction of union dues by the claimant from its members and Gazetted an account under Gazette Notice No. 10698 for purpose of union deductions. That the respondent submitted a draft recognition agreement to the claimant with a view to get the claimant to recognize the union.
5. It is clear from the respondent’s deposition that the claimant refused and/or delayed to recognize the union and to deduct union dues.
6. The respondent does not deny that it issued a strike notice dated 25th October 2018 pursuant to this dispute.
Determination
7. There is no recognition agreement between the claimant employer and the respondent union in terms of Section 54(1) of the Labour Relations Act 2007. The respondent did not report a dispute regarding failure by the claimant to recognize the union and refusal to deduct union dues in terms of Section 62 and 74 of the Labour Relations Act. Indeed under Section 74, is provided:
“A trade union may refer a dispute to the industrial court as a matter of urgency if the dispute concerns:
(a) The recognition of a trade union in accordance with Section 62”
8. Section 76 of Labour Relations Act provides circumstances under which a strike notice may be issued. These include interalia where:
“(b) The trade dispute is unresolved after conciliation”
Under the act or a registered collective agreement.
9. It is not in dispute that the parties here do not have a recognition agreement nor a collective agreement. It is also not in dispute that the respondent union upon being aggrieved by the decision by the claimant not to recognize it and not to deduct union dues did not report a dispute for conciliation by the minister of labour nor did the union approach court under Section 74 of the Labour Relations Act. Instead, the respondent took to self-help by issuing a 7 days strike notice to the claimant which is manifestly in violation of express provisions of the Labour Relations Act 2007.
10. Accordingly, the applicant has satisfied the requirements as per the case of Giella vs Cassman Brown Limited and interim orders issued by Hon. Justice Rika on 7th November 2018 are hereby confirmed.
11. Accordingly, the court issues the following orders:
(a) The respondent and/or its members employed by the claimant are restrained from taking any strike action according to the strike notice dated 25th October 2018 issued by the respondent pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
Ruling Dated, Signed and delivered this 9th day of October, 2019
Mathews N. Nduma
Judge
Appearances
Mr. Mogaka for claimant/applicant
Mr. Otieno for Respondent
Chrispo – Court Clerk