Kenya Concrete, Structural, Ceramic Tiles, Wood Plys & Interior Design Union Workers v Kelco Aluminium Works Limited (Cause E104 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 365 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Respondent is obliged to deduct and remit union dues to the Claimant Union
- 2.Whether the Respondent must recognise the Claimant Union for purposes of collective bargaining
- 3.Whether the Respondent should be compelled to negotiate a Collective Bargaining Agreement
- 4.Whether the Claimant represents a simple majority of the Respondent's unionisable employees
Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant Union is entitled to recognition and deduction/remittance of union dues
The court declined to grant the orders sought outright because union membership numbers and the size of the unionisable workforce are contested; it directed a census to establish the facts.
The Respondent conceded some employees were recruited but disputed the claimed 27 members and the asserted workforce of 43. No viva voce evidence was tendered. Recognition under Section 54(1) requires a simple majority, which cannot be established on the contested pleadings. A census by a Labour Officer designated by the Chief Industrial Relations Officer was directed to establish the true membership position, with a report to be filed within 60 days.
Distinction between representation and recognition
Representation entitles a union to collect dues from its members; recognition for collective bargaining requires a simple majority under Section 54(1).
Following Modern Soap Factory v Kenya Shoe and Leather Workers Union, the court distinguished the two concepts. The Claimant's conceded recruitment of some members supports representation (dues collection), but recognition depends on the simple majority threshold, which remained unproven and required factual inquiry.
Legal principles established
#- There is a distinction between representation of workers by their trade union and recognition of the trade union by an employer for purposes of collective bargaining.
- An employer shall recognise a trade union for collective bargaining only if it represents a simple majority of unionisable employees (Section 54(1), Labour Relations Act).
Court orders
#- 1.The Chief Industrial Relations Officer to designate a Labour Officer to conduct a census at the Respondent's premises to establish the names and designations of all unionisable employees and those who are members of the Claimant Union
- 2.The designated Labour Officer to file their report in court within sixty (60) days from the date of the judgment
- 3.No order for costs at this stage
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act (trade union dues and recognition dispute)
Relief refused
#Order directing Respondent to comply with Sections 48 and 54 of the Labour Relations Act
Deferred pending a census to establish actual unionisable workforce and union membership
Order directing Respondent to sign a Recognition Agreement and commence CBA negotiations
Recognition entitlement depends on proof of simple majority, which is contested and unproven on the pleadings alone
Order barring the Respondent from intimidating union members
Not granted; court opted for a factual census instead
Costs
No order for costs at this stage
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
I have considered the pleadings and submissions filed by the parties and have reached the conclusion that the ends of justice will best be served by a census at the Respondent's premises.
I therefore direct the Chief Industrial Relations Oficer to designate a Labour Oficer to conduct a census at the Respondent's premises
I make no order for costs at this stage.
there is a distinction between representation of workers by their trade union and recognition of the trade union by an employer for purposes of collective bargaining.
An employer, including an employer in the public sector, shall recognise a trade union for purposes of collective bargaining if that trade union represents a simple majority of unionisable employees.
Issues in the judgment
#Case title, case number and names of the parties are not stated anywhere in the judgment text provided; the claimant is referred to only as 'the Claimant Union' and the respondent only by description.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Concrete, Structural, Ceramic Tiles, Wood Plys & Interior Design Union Workers v Kelco Aluminium Works Limited (Cause E104 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 365 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/365/eng@2024-02-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.