Kenya Shoe and Leather Workers Union v Technoplast Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E547 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 613 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court ruled employers only remit union dues actually deducted from workers' salaries, and cannot claw back disputed payments without a court order.
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 can be compelled to remit to the Claimant trade union dues money which it has not collected from employees, particularly casual employees not on regular payroll
- 2.Whether the Respondent is entitled to unilaterally recover the sum of Kshs 1,680,000.00 allegedly paid in error without a court order
- 3.Whether the interim orders made earlier should be set aside
Key legal issues
#Source of trade union dues
Employer must remit dues deducted from employees' salaries, not from its own resources
The obligation to deduct at source exists because the employer settles salaries; but the law does not require the employer to fund dues from its own resources. Casual employees not on regular salary may pay directly under section 52, or parties may agree another arrangement, the enforceability of which awaits full trial.
Unilateral recovery of alleged erroneous payments
The Respondent cannot self-help by offsetting the Kshs 1,680,000.00 against dues without a court order
Whether the payments were erroneous or made pursuant to an agreement is disputed and enforceability of the alleged agreement must be confirmed at trial. Pending that, the Respondent cannot unilaterally recover sums allegedly paid in error; such recovery requires a court order.
Legal principles established
#- An employer is only obliged to remit trade union dues actually deducted from employees' salaries, not dues sourced from its own resources
- An employer may not unilaterally recover alleged erroneous payments from remittances without a court order
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent is allowed not to remit the monthly sum of Kshs 30,000.00 on account of casual employees until the action is heard and determined
- 2.The Respondent to continue remitting trade union dues and agency fees from employees in regular employment who are members or CBA beneficiaries
- 3.The Respondent is forbidden from deducting from those remittances in purported recovery of the alleged erroneous payments totaling Kshs 1,680,000.00 until determination of the suit
- 4.The Claimant to arrange with its casual-employee members for direct payment of trade union dues under section 52 of the Labour Relations Act
- 5.Costs of the two applications to abide the outcome of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over trade union dues and CBA disputes under the Labour Relations Act
Relief refused
#Continued remittance of the Kshs 30,000.00 monthly payment for casual employees by the Claimant
The employer cannot be compelled to remit dues it has not collected from employees' salaries; arrangement pending full trial
Costs
The costs of the two applications shall abide the outcome of the suit.
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.
pending the full trial of the case, the Respondent shall continue to remit to the Claimant trade union dues and agency fees from employees who are in its regular employment. However, for employees who are serving on casual basis, they are at liberty to remit their trade union dues directly to the Claimant.
The Respondent is forbidden from making any deductions from the amounts in paragraph b) above purportedly in recovery of the purported erroneous payments to the Claimant totaling Kshs 1,680,000.00 until this action is heard and determined on the merits.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not name the parties by their actual names; they are referred to only as Claimant and Respondent
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Shoe and Leather Workers Union v Technoplast Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E547 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 613 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/613/eng@2024-03-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.