[2018] KEELRC 1531 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 1531 (KLR)

The court found that despite the lapse of the CBA period, the claimant union members who were employed during that time were entitled to benefit from the negotiated CBA. The CPMU report, which provided an objective assessment, indicated a 10% rise in the cost of living indices, justifying a corresponding wage...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELRC 1531 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Tailors & Textiles Workers Union; Respondent: Mills Industries Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 496 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling
Outcome
partly allowed
Judges
DI Wasike
Legal Topics
Collective Bargaining Agreements, Wage Increment, House Allowance, Safari Allowance, Gratuity, Minimum Wage
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Collective Bargaining Agreements Wage Increment House Allowance Safari Allowance Gratuity Minimum Wage

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tailors & Textiles Workers Union

Applicant

Mills Industries Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the claimant union members are entitled to a general wage increment for the CBA period in dispute.
  2. 2 Whether the basic wage for new entrants, house allowance, safari allowance, and gratuity should be awarded as per the disputed CBA clauses.
  3. 3 Whether the claim has been overtaken by events due to the lapse of the CBA period.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that despite the lapse of the CBA period, the claimant union members who were employed during that time were entitled to benefit from the negotiated CBA. The CPMU report, which provided an objective assessment, indicated a 10% rise in the cost of living indices, justifying a corresponding wage increment. The respondent's arguments regarding financial hardship were not sufficiently substantiated, especially given evidence of ongoing business operations and contracts. The court held that the minimum wage is a floor, not a ceiling, and that compensating workers for loss of purchasing power aligns with good business practice and government policy. Therefore, the court awarded...

Court Disposition

partly allowed

Orders

  • A 10% increment over the minimum wage is awarded to the claimant's members for the CBA period.
  • Other disputed aspects of the CBA are to be incorporated and negotiated afresh in subsequent CBAs if not already done.