Public Transport Operations Union v Union Logistics Limited & another (Cause E047 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1701 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed employers can report workplace theft to police while running internal investigations, and unions must try statutory dispute resolution before rushing to court.
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 reporting of a theft to the Police while internal investigations were ongoing violated clause 18 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
- 2.Whether criminal investigations could run parallel to internal investigations and disciplinary action
- 3.Whether the suspension of employees suspected of involvement in the theft breached the Collective Bargaining Agreement
- 4.Whether the 1st Respondent threatened or intimidated employees for participating in union activities
- 5.Whether the Union exhausted the statutory alternative dispute resolution avenues in the Labour Relations Act before moving the Court
- 6.Whether any wrongful act or legal injury was occasioned by the 2nd Respondent, the National Police Service Commission
Key legal issues
#Parallel criminal and internal investigations
There is no bar to an employer reporting a theft to the Police while conducting internal investigations for disciplinary action; this does not violate the CBA
The Court found that the Union and the 1st Respondent had a recognition agreement and CBA, but reporting a theft incident to the Police did not oust or circumvent internal dispute resolution. The Police's statutory investigative mandate could not be waived by private agreement, and the Union failed to show the parallel processes were incompatible or breached clause 18 of the CBA.
Suspension of suspected employees under the CBA
The suspension of employees suspected of involvement in the theft did not breach the Collective Bargaining Agreement or any known legal principle
Clause 18 of the CBA provided for suspension of employees. The Respondent deponed that suspensions were with notice to the Union, necessitated by a stock discrepancy of Kshs 2,258,215/-, and some employees' contracts had expired or they had resigned. The Union adduced nothing to show the suspensions were wrongful.
Exhaustion of statutory alternative dispute resolution mechanisms
The Union's claim was premature as it had not attempted the dispute resolution avenues in Part VIII of the Labour Relations Act
The Court held that the Union moved the Court before attempting to comply with the statutory alternative dispute resolution avenues outlined in Part VIII of the Labour Relations Act. The consultative meetings contemplated under the CBA had not been pursued, so the Court declined to grant the interlocutory reliefs sought.
Freedom of association and alleged intimidation
The Union failed to demonstrate that the 1st Respondent threatened or intimidated employees for participating in union activities
The 1st Respondent deponed that there was no evidence of threats or victimisation and that some employees had voluntarily withdrawn from the Union. The Union, which bore the burden of proof on its allegations, did not controvert this evidence. The claim of interference with freedom of association therefore failed at the interlocutory stage.
Liability of the National Police Service Commission
No wrongful act or legal injury was shown against the 2nd Respondent
The 2nd Respondent contended it had no contractual relationship with the Union, no criminal investigative or police powers, and that no legal nexus had been established between it and the dispute. The Court agreed that the Union had not shown any wrongful act or legal injury occasioned by the National Police Service Commission.
Legal principles established
#- Criminal investigations by the Police may lawfully run parallel to an employer's internal investigations and disciplinary processes
- Parties may not generally waive or oust the jurisdiction of the Police in the performance of its investigative mandate
- A party must attempt the statutory alternative dispute resolution avenues in Part VIII of the Labour Relations Act before approaching the Court
Court orders
#- 1.The Motion dated 23 January 2025 is found without merit and is dismissed with costs
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 and Employment Act (not expressly cited in the judgment; jurisdiction not discussed)
Relief refused
#Setting aside of the ongoing DCI process with respect to the subject matter
Police have a legal mandate to investigate criminal offences which parties may not oust
Declaration that the Respondent's letter dated 24 December 2024 stopping trade union deductions was unprocedural and setting it aside
Union did not demonstrate threats, intimidation or violation of the CBA
Reinstatement of suspended workers with no loss of privileges pending hearing
Union did not show the suspension breached the CBA or any legal principle
Directions that consultative meetings proceed under a Court Annexed Mediated Arrangement
Union moved the Court before attempting statutory alternative dispute resolution avenues
Costs
The Motion is dismissed with costs (costs awarded to the Respondents)
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.
In light of the above, the Motion dated 23 January 2025 is found without merit and is dismissed with costs.
The Police have a legal mandate to investigate allegations of criminal ofiences, and parties may not generally waive or oust the jurisdiction of the Police in the performance of its investigative mandate.
the Union moved the Court before attempting to comply with the statutory alternative dispute resolution avenues outlined in Part VIII of the Labour Relations Act.
Issues in the judgment
#The Motion refers to a letter dated '24th December 2025' while the Judgment elsewhere refers to a letter dated 24th December 2024
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Public Transport Operations Union v Union Logistics Limited & another (Cause E047 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1701 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Motion dated 23 January 2025 in a Memorandum of Claim filed 28 January 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1701/eng@2025-06-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.