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. 83 of 2006· [2007] KEELRC 7 (KLR)

COMMUNICATION WORKERS UNION OF KENYA v TELCOM KENYA LTD [2007] KEELRC 7 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya
18 September 2007
CCCharles P. ChemmuttutJKJ.M. KilonzoOWO.A. Wafula
1,372 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Industrial Court ordered Telkom Kenya to pay every unionisable employee a Kshs. 4,000 monthly commuter allowance, whether or not they own a car.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This award by the Industrial Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Coram: Charles P. Chemmuttut, J., with J.M. Kilonzo and O.A. Wafula, Members) determined a trade dispute referred under Section 14(7) and (9)(e) of the Trade Disputes Act, Cap. 234, by the Communication Workers Union of Kenya against Telcom Kenya Ltd concerning a transport/commuter allowance. The Union, through its General Secretary Benson O. Okwaro, contended that paying car allowance of Kshs. 2,000/= per month only to 1,500 unionisable employees who own cars, out of 6,000 unionisable employees, was discriminatory and an unfair labour practice, and demanded a transport/commuter allowance across the board of between Kshs. 2,000/= and Kshs. 8,700/= per person per month, citing the Company's savings of about Kshs. 1 billion following retrenchment and comparable employers such as NSSF and Kenya Airways. The Company, through Mr. Andrew Wandabwa, opposed the demand as mischievous, unreasonable and economically unattainable given financial constraints that had forced retrenchment, arguing the allowance was only a proposal that ended in disagreement, that transport was already factored into salaries, and that a flexible car loan scheme existed. The Court held there is no absolute right to employer-provided transport but, given escalating transport costs and industry practice, it was fair that the Company contribute to employees' transport expenses. It awarded Kshs. 4,000/= per month to every unionisable employee irrespective of car ownership, effective 31st October 2007, granting the demand in part.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Company should pay a transport/commuter allowance to all unionisable employees across the board

Holding

The Court awarded a transport/commuter allowance of Kshs. 4,000/= per month to every unionisable employee, irrespective of car ownership, effective 31st October 2007

Reasoning

The Court acknowledged that although there is no absolute obligation on an employer to provide transport to employees, escalating transport costs mean employees bear heavy charges from modest wages. Noting that some establishments provide such allowances in collective agreements (e.g. NSSF at Kshs. 4,200/= per month), the Court found it fair that the Company contribute part of the transport expenses, balancing the Union's demand against the Company's claim of financial constraint.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • It is ordinarily the employees' duty to come to their place of work and there is no obligation on the employer to provide transport, but fairness may require the employer to contribute to transport costs in an age of escalating transport costs
  • It is fair for an employer to contribute part of the transport expenses incurred by unionisable employees

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Every unionisable employee, irrespective of whether he or she owns a car or not, be paid transport or commuter allowance of Kshs. 4,000/= per month
  2. 2.The allowance takes effect from 31st October, 2007
Jurisdiction invoked
Trade Disputes Act, Cap. 234, Section 14(7) and (9)(e) - dispute referred with statutory certificate of the Labour Commissioner

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "COMMUNICATION WORKERS UNION OF KENYA v TELCOM KENYA LTD [2007] KEELRC 7 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2007). Cause No. 83 of 2006. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2007/7/eng@2007-09-18

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