Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
IndustrialAllowedCause 68 of 2001· [2003] KEIC 1 (KLR)

Kenya Game Hunting & Safaris Workers’ Union v Micato Safaris Ltd; Transport & Allied Workers’ Union (Interested Party) (Cause 68 of 2001) [2003] KEIC 1 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya
28 March 2003
CCCP ChemuttutJKJM KilonzoOWOA Wafula
1,634 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Industrial Court ruled that a union with majority membership and dues already being remitted must be formally recognised by the employer.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is an award of the Industrial Court at Nairobi in a trade dispute referred to it by the Minister for Labour on 19th July 2001 under Section 8 of the Trade Disputes Act, Cap. 234, following the Company's refusal to accord formal recognition to the claimant union. The dispute arose after the Company's unionisable employees revoked their membership of the Transport & Allied Workers' Union (the interested party), with which the Company had a recognition agreement since 1968, and joined the Kenya Game Hunting & Safaris Workers' Union in 1994/95. The first Union recruited 30 of the Company's 52 unionisable employees (57%, a simple majority) and sought recognition, but the Company declined, continuing instead to remit union dues to the first Union under Section 47 of the Act. A formal trade dispute reported in 1995 led to a Ministerial investigation, which found majority representation and recommended formal recognition; the Company rejected the recommendation. Before the Court, the first Union sought an order for recognition; the Company argued that only 17 of 52 employees had signed the check-off list and that its 1968 recognition agreement with the second Union remained valid; the second Union accused the first Union of poaching its members. The Court held that the Company's continued remittance of dues amounted to recognition in principle, that the second Union had lost its representative character after 1993, and upheld the Minister's findings. The Court awarded that the Company accord formal recognition to the first Union as sole representative and directed the parties to sign a recognition agreement within two months. Both members concurred.

Key legal issues

#
01

Entitlement to represent unionisable employees and to be accorded recognition

Holding

The first Union, having recruited a simple majority (57%) of the unionisable employees and being in receipt of union dues remitted by the Company, is the rightful representative and is entitled to formal recognition

Reasoning

The second Union held a recognition agreement from 1968 but lost its representative character when employees revoked membership in 1993 and joined the first Union, which recruited 30 of 52 employees. The Minister for Labour investigated and recommended recognition. The Company's continued remittance of union dues to the first Union demonstrated recognition in principle. The Court upheld the Minister's findings and awarded formal recognition and execution of a recognition agreement.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A union whose membership constitutes a simple majority of the unionisable employees and which already receives remittance of union dues is entitled to formal recognition as the collective bargaining agent
  • A union that ceases to represent the industrial interests of the employees loses its representative character as a collective bargaining agent

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Company is to accord formal recognition to the first Union, Kenya Game Hunting & Safaris Workers’ Union, as the sole, rightful and legitimate representative of its unionisable employees
  2. 2.The parties must sign a recognition agreement within two (2) months from the date of the award
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 8 of the Trade Disputes Act, Cap. 234 (referral by the Minister for Labour)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Game Hunting & Safaris Workers’ Union v Micato Safaris Ltd; Transport & Allied Workers’ Union (Interested Party) (Cause 68 of 2001) [2003] KEIC 1 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2003). Cause 68 of 2001. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keic/2003/1/eng@2003-03-28

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