Kenya Shoe & Leather Workers’ Union v House of Leather (Owned By Levs Trading Co. Ltd.) (Cause 33 of 2006) [2006] KEIC 6 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Industrial Court ordered House of Leather to recognise the workers' union because it had signed up most employees, rejecting the company's attempt to hide its legal identity.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Union satisfied the recognition requirements under Section 5(2) of the Trade Disputes Act
The Court found the Union had recruited a simple majority (39 of 53, about 73.6%) of unionisable employees and that no rival union claimed recognition, so the requirements were fulfilled.
Rule 3(a) of the Union's constitution covered employees engaged in the leather industry including shoes shops, making the Union the appropriate one to represent the Company's employees. The Union claimed 39 of 53 unionisable employees as members, exceeding the 51% simple majority threshold. The Investigator's contrary findings were rejected as self-contradictory. No rival union was claiming recognition.
Whether the dispute was bad in law because the correct legal entity was Levs Trading Co. Ltd. and not House of Leather
The objection failed; the company's concealment of its true identity meant it did not come to court with clean hands and the misdescription could not defeat the dispute.
While a limited liability company is a distinct legal entity, the Company knew of its own existence and had its certificate of incorporation since the dispute arose. It withheld its true identity from both the Union and the Investigator until the hearing. This non-disclosure disentitled it from relying on the misnomer to have the dispute dismissed.
The weight to be attached to the Minister's (Investigator's) findings and recommendation
The Court took great exception to the entire Investigator's report, finding it self-contradictory, and declined to adopt its recommendation against recognition.
The Company argued that the Minister's findings and recommendation were unchallenged and correct. However, the Court found the report internally contradictory, particularly regarding the recruitment figures and the check-off system, and therefore declined to give it effect.
Employees' freedom of association and the employer's duty to recognise trade unions
The Court reaffirmed employees' constitutional right to join trade unions and deprecated employers who refuse recognition.
Counsel for the Union invoked Section 80 of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of association. The Court endorsed the view that employers who resent the emergence of trade unions in order to dictate terms of service are fighting a losing battle, and declared that the era of refusing recognition and denying employees the right to join unions should be over.
Legal principles established
#- The two conditions precedent for recognition of a union by an employer are a simple majority of eligible employees in membership and the absence of a rival union claiming recognition.
- A limited liability company is a distinct legal entity, but misjoinder of the company's trade name is not a ground for rejecting a dispute where the company concealed its true identity.
Court orders
#- 1.The Company to accord formal recognition to the Union forthwith
- 2.The parties to sign a recognition agreement within two (2) months from the date of the award for purposes of collective bargaining
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 8 of the Trade Disputes Act, Cap. 234, Laws of Kenya
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Shoe & Leather Workers’ Union v House of Leather (Owned By Levs Trading Co. Ltd.) (Cause 33 of 2006) [2006] KEIC 6 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2006). Cause 33 of 2006. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keic/2006/6/eng@2006-08-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.