Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause No. 100 of 2001· [2002] KEELRC 16 (KLR)

TAILORS & TEXTILES WORKERS’ UNION v BLANKET INDUSTRIES LTD [2002] KEELRC 16 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya
12 November 2002
CCCharles P. ChemmuttutJKJ.M. KilonzoJOJ.C. Odaga
340 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Industrial Court turned a union-employer settlement into a binding award, granting two 5% wage increases and a house allowance.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a first-instance labour dispute referred to the Industrial Court of Kenya by way of a Notification of Dispute in Form 'A' dated 29th October 2001, accompanied by a statutory certificate from the Labour Commissioner under Section 14(7) and (9)(e) of the Trade Disputes Act, Cap. 234. Eight issues were in dispute between the Tailors & Textiles Workers' Union and Blanket Industries Ltd: general wage increase, house allowance, leave travelling allowance, retirement benefits/gratuity, redundancy, casual employment, death of an employee, and night transport. The Union filed its memorandum on 11th March 2002, the Company replied on 25th April 2002, and the dispute was heard on 28th August 2002. On the morning of 12th November 2002, before the court's award was ready, the parties presented a memorandum of settlement dated 11th November 2002, signed by Mr. Vinay Gudka (Managing Director) for the Company and Mr. E. Bonyonte (Assistant Secretary General) for the Union, witnessed by Mr. J.N. Namasake of the F.K.E. The parties jointly prayed for an award by consent. The settlement provided for a 5% wage increase from 1st August 2000 and a further 5% from 1st August 2001, a house allowance of Kshs. 1,300, and for all remaining disputed items to remain as per the current Collective Bargaining Agreement. Judge Charles P. Chemmuttut found the terms fair and reasonable and awarded in terms of the settlement as prayed. No costs order was made.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the memorandum of settlement dated 11th November 2002 should be adopted as an award by consent

Holding

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable and awarded in terms thereof as prayed for by the parties

Reasoning

Before delivering its award, the court received a memorandum of settlement signed by the Managing Director for the Company and the Assistant Secretary General for the Union, witnessed by the Principal Executive Officer of F.K.E., covering all eight issues in dispute. The parties jointly prayed for an award by consent in terms of the settlement. The judge examined the terms - a 5% wage increase effective 1st August 2000 and a further 5% effective 1st August 2001, a house allowance of Kshs. 1,300, with all remaining items to remain as per the current Collective Bargaining Agreement - and concluded the terms were fair and reasonable, entering an award accordingly.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • A court may enter an award by consent where the parties present a memorandum of settlement whose terms are fair and reasonable

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Award entered by consent in terms of the memorandum of settlement dated 11th November 2002
  2. 2.All unionisable employees to receive a percentage wage increase based on individual wages of 5% from 1st August 2000 and 5% from 1st August 2001
  3. 3.House allowance of Kshs. 1,300
  4. 4.All other items in dispute (leave travelling allowance, retirement benefit/gratuity, redundancy, casual employment, death of an employee, night transport) to remain as per the current Collective Bargaining Agreement
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 14(7) and (9)(e) of the Trade Disputes Act, Cap. 234 (Notification of Dispute with statutory certificate of the Labour Commissioner)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (2)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "TAILORS & TEXTILES WORKERS’ UNION v BLANKET INDUSTRIES LTD [2002] KEELRC 16 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2002). Cause No. 100 of 2001. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2002/16/eng@2002-11-12

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.