Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause (claim and Notice of Motion dated 29th August 2016, filed 7th September 2016)· [2017] KEELRC 1878 (KLR)

Kenya Shoe and Leather Workers Union v Crown Industries Limited & another [2017] KEELRC 1878 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
1 February 2017
LNLINNET NDOLO
1,367 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

#

A Kenyan employment court dismissed a union's bid to force employer recognition, ruling unions must prove current majority membership with hard evidence.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant union filed a Memorandum of Claim and Notice of Motion seeking to restrain the Respondent employer from transferring its production machines and the Claimant's members without union involvement, and an order compelling the Respondent to sign a Recognition Agreement. The Respondent countered that it had cooperated with the Claimant pursuant to earlier court orders in Cause No 1372 of 2013, that the Claimant had not attained the simple majority threshold under Section 54(1) of the Labour Relations Act, and that a rival union, the Kenya Chemical and Allied Workers Union (joined as Interested Party), had recruited the requisite numbers and validly signed a Recognition Agreement on 6th July 2016. The Respondent admitted relocating some operations and employees to new premises in Industrial Area as part of lawful business reorganisation, with notice to the Union and employees. The Interested Party affirmed the validity of its recognition agreement. The court framed two issues: whether the transfer raised a recognisable cause of action, and whether the Claimant had attained the recognition threshold. On the first, no specific violation of employee rights was pleaded and the reorganisation was not faulted. On the second, recognition requires documentary proof of a simple majority of unionisable employees; of the Claimant's 221 members, 218 had signed check-off forms before the Interested Party's agreement was executed, and the Claimant adduced no evidence of current membership. The claim for recognition was unsupported and unsustainable. The entire claim and the Notice of Motion were dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether transfer of production machines and employees gives rise to a cause of action

Holding

No cause of action was established; the relocation was lawful business reorganisation with notice to employees

Reasoning

The Respondent admitted relocating some employees to new premises as part of business reorganisation, with notices issued to the Union and affected employees. The Claimant pleaded only general statements and no specific violation of employee rights, so the Court declined to interfere with the employer's decision.

p. 3
02

Whether the Claimant attained the simple majority threshold for recognition under Section 54(1) of the Labour Relations Act

Holding

The Claimant did not prove current simple majority membership; recognition was properly granted to the rival union (Interested Party)

Reasoning

Recognition requires a simple majority of unionisable employees, proved by documentary evidence. Only one recognition agreement can exist per establishment. The Claimant's check-off forms showed 218 of 221 members signed before the Interested Party's recognition agreement was executed, and the Claimant failed to adduce evidence of its current membership status.

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer must recognise a trade union for collective bargaining only where it represents a simple majority of unionisable employees
  • A union seeking recognition must lay documentary evidence before the Court of a simple majority of unionisable employees
  • A union seeking to dislodge an existing recognition agreement must file evidence of its current membership status

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Dismissal of the Claimant's entire claim
  2. 2.Dismissal of the Notice of Motion dated 29th August 2016
  3. 3.Each party to bear its own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Labour Relations ActSection 54(1)

Cases cited (2)

  • Aviation & Allied Workers Union v Air Kenya Express Limited & another
    [2013] eKLR
  • Scientific Research International Technical & Allied Workers Union v Kenya Agricultural Research Institute & another
    [2013] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and the Labour Relations Act (trade dispute on recognition of a trade union)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Shoe and Leather Workers Union v Crown Industries Limited & another [2017] KEELRC 1878 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Cause (claim and Notice of Motion dated 29th August 2016, filed 7th September 2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2017/1878/eng@2017-02-01

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