[2025] KEELRC 1 (KLR)
The court found that the Grievant was not a member of the Claimant Union during his employment, and the Claimant failed to provide evidence to the contrary. As such, the Grievant could not claim benefits under the CBA negotiated between the Claimant and the Respondent. The court relied on established precedent that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELRC 1 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Tailors and Textiles Workers Union; Respondent: Vajas Manufacturers Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 680 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- claim dismissed
- Judges
- L Ndolo
- Legal Topics
- Collective Bargaining Agreements, Union Membership, Terminal Dues, Certificate of Service
- 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
Tailors and Textiles Workers Union
Applicant
Vajas Manufacturers Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a non-unionised employee can claim benefits under a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
- 2 Whether the Grievant was entitled to terminal dues and damages as claimed under the CBA.
- 3 Whether the Grievant was a member of the Claimant Union during his employment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Grievant was not a member of the Claimant Union during his employment, and the Claimant failed to provide evidence to the contrary. As such, the Grievant could not claim benefits under the CBA negotiated between the Claimant and the Respondent. The court relied on established precedent that non-unionised employees are not entitled to CBA benefits unless expressly covered. The claim, being premised solely on the CBA, was therefore not proved and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
claim dismissed
Orders
- The claim is dismissed.
- Each party will bear their own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
Tailors and Textiles Workers Union v Vajas Manufacturers Limited (Cause 680 of 2012) [2025] KEELRC 1 (KLR) (16 January 2025) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELRC 1 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Cause 680 of 2012
L Ndolo, J
January 16, 2025
Between
Tailors and Textiles Workers Union
Claimant
and
Vajas Manufacturers Limited
Respondent
Judgment
Introduction 1. By a Memorandum of Claim dated 3rd October 2019, the Claimant Union proceeds against the Respondent for payment of terminal dues to its member, Collince Otieno Onyunka (the Grievant). The Respondent filed a Memorandum of Response dated 17th February 2023.
2. By consent of the parties, the matter proceeded on the basis of pleadings and written submissions.
The Claimant’s Case 3. The Claimant states that the Grievant, Collince Otieno Onyunka, was employed by the Respondent as a Sales Executive effective 5th October 2005. The Grievant worked for the Respondent for 14 years, after which he voluntarily resigned from employment. At the time of leaving employment, the Grievant earned a monthly salary of Kshs. 14,000.
4. The Claimant further states that the Grievant was discharged on 31st January 2019 but was not paid his terminal dues as per clause 10 of the obtaining Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
5. The Claimant’s claim is that the Grievant is entitled to 19 days’ pay for each completed year of service, aggregating to Kshs. 409,230. 80. The Claimant further states that the Grievant is entitled to a certificate of service under Section 51 of the Employment Act. Additionally, the Claimant claims 12 months’ salary as damages for breach of clause 7 of the CBA.
The Respondent’s Case 6. In its Memorandum of Response dated 17th February 2023, the Respondent admits having employed the Grievant as a Tourist Sales Executive from October 2009 until January 2019, when he served his resignation letter, terminating his employment effective 31st January 2019. The Respondent pleads the Grievant’s exit salary as Kshs. 43,255.
7. The Respondent further concedes the existence of a Recognition Agreement between itself and the Claimant Union. The Respondent however states that throughout his employment period, the Grievant was not a member of the Union. According to the Respondent, the Grievant was paid all his terminal dues as per his employment contract.
8. The Respondent submits that a non-union member cannot lay a claim under a CBA, to which they were not a party.
Determination 9. The Claimant’s claim, on behalf of the Grievant, is based on a CBA negotiated and concluded between the Claimant and the Respondent. The Respondent’s position is that during his employment, the Grievant was not a member of the Union and cannot therefore benefit from provisions of the CBA. The Respondent adds that the position of Sales Executive held by the Grievant fell within the management cadre.
10. In advancing this position, the Respondent relied on the decision in Banking Insurance and Finance Union v Middle East Bank (K) Limited [2020] KEELRC 1869 (KLR) where it was held that that the right to unionise may be restricted through a CBA, Employment Contract or Industrial Relations Charter.
11. The Claimant did not adduce any evidence to counter the Respondent’s assertion that during the time of his employment, the Grievant was not unionised. Consequently, the Grievant’s claim, which is premised on the provisions of CBA, was not proved.
12. The claim therefore fails and is dismissed with an order that each party will bear their own costs.
13. Orders accordingly.
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 16THDAY JANUARY 2025LINNET NDOLOJUDGEAppearance:Mr. Omondi (union representative) for the ClaimantMr. Okeche for the Respondent