[2004] KEELRC 7 (KLR)

[2004] KEELRC 7 (KLR)

The Court found that both parties, either knowingly or unknowingly, failed to consider the paramount interests of the grievants by entering into settlements under the early retirement clause (Article 14) instead of the redundancy clause (Article 6), despite the Company’s initial intention to declare redundancies....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] KEELRC 7 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Transport & Allied Workers’ Union; Respondent: Kenya Bus Services Ltd
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 98 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Employment and Labour Cause / Final Award
Outcome
Settlements or agreements on early retirement declared null and void; grievants to be paid terminal benefits under redundancy clause.
Legal Topics
Redundancy Procedure, Collective Bargaining Agreements, Early Retirement, Misrepresentation, Non Disclosure, Terminal Benefits
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Redundancy Procedure Collective Bargaining Agreements Early Retirement Misrepresentation Non Disclosure Terminal Benefits

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Transport & Allied Workers’ Union

Claimant

Kenya Bus Services Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment and Labour Cause / Final Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the settlements or agreements on early retirement entered into between the Union and the Company were valid and enforceable.
  2. 2 Whether there was non-disclosure and misrepresentation of material facts by the Company to the Union regarding the redundancy and restructuring.
  3. 3 Whether the grievants are entitled to terminal benefits under the redundancy clause (Article 6) of the collective agreement instead of the early retirement clause (Article 14).

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that both parties, either knowingly or unknowingly, failed to consider the paramount interests of the grievants by entering into settlements under the early retirement clause (Article 14) instead of the redundancy clause (Article 6), despite the Company’s initial intention to declare redundancies. The Court determined that there was insufficient disclosure and representation of material facts by the Company regarding the restructuring and transfer of business, which vitiated the validity of the agreements. Consequently, the settlements or agreements entered into on 28th September, 30th October, and 21st November 2001 were declared null and void. The Court ordered that the...

Court Disposition

Settlements or agreements on early retirement declared null and void; grievants to be paid terminal benefits under redundancy clause.

Orders

  • All settlements or agreements entered into and signed by the parties on 28th September, 30th October and 21st November, 2001 are declared null and void.
  • The terminal benefits of the grievants shall be calculated and paid under Article 6 of the parties’ collective agreement in force at the material time, less any amount already paid to them.