Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
IndustrialPartially AllowedCause 22 of 2007

Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions, Hospitals & Allied Workers v Imani School Ltd (Cause 22 of 2007) (Employment and Labour) [2008] KEIC 3 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya (Employment and Labour)
20 February 2008
1,334 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Industrial Court ruled that a recognised union has full legal standing to negotiate a collective agreement, and ordered the school to start talks immediately.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Minister for Labour and Human Resource Development referred a trade dispute to the Industrial Court under Section 8 of the (now repealed) Trade Disputes Act, Cap. 234, together with a statutory certificate from the Labour Commissioner under Section 14(9)(e). The dispute concerned Imani School Ltd's refusal to negotiate 33 clauses of a proposed collective agreement with the Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions, Hospitals & Allied Workers. The parties held a valid recognition agreement dated 17th June 2003 and one collective agreement for 2001–2002, but the Company refused to negotiate the next agreement covering 2003–2004, and further refused to attend conciliation before the Minister's appointed conciliator. The Union, through Mr. M.S. Njiru, argued the Company was able to pay wage increments and prayed for an order compelling negotiations. The Company, through Mr. Gitonga Njeru, contended that the recognition agreement was signed single-handedly by the then Administrator, Mr. H.L. Gee, without sanction by the school committee; that there was no proof of employee membership; and that the Board should not be punished for past acts. It sought referral back for fresh negotiations. The Company failed to appear at the hearing and the dispute proceeded ex-parte on 6th February 2008. The Court held that the Union's registration and the recognition agreement conferred locus standi, Section 5(2) of the Act having merged employees' bargaining rights into unions as collective bargaining agents. The Court awarded and ordered the Company to negotiate forthwith new terms and conditions of employment for all unionisable employees. No costs order was recorded.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the Union has locus standi to negotiate a collective agreement on behalf of the Company's unionisable employees
  2. 2.Whether the Company should be compelled to negotiate with the Union new terms and conditions of employment covering the period from 1st January 2003 to date

Key legal issues

#
01

Locus standi of a recognised trade union to negotiate collective agreements

Holding

The Union's registration under Section 11 of the Trade Unions Act and the Company's recognition agreement of 17th June 2003 suffice to confer locus standi to negotiate on behalf of all unionisable employees; the employer cannot resile from the recognition agreement.

Reasoning

The Court held that Section 5(2) of the Trade Disputes Act was enacted to merge the identity of individual employees into trade unions as collective bargaining agents, taking away individual employees' rights and entrusting them to unions. Since the Union was duly registered and accorded recognition by the Company, it had standing to negotiate, notwithstanding the Company's arguments about the recognition agreement's validity.

p. 4
02

Employer's duty to negotiate a collective agreement

Holding

The Company was ordered to negotiate forthwith new terms and conditions of employment with the Union for all unionisable employees.

Reasoning

The dispute arose when the Union forwarded proposals for a collective agreement covering 1st January 2003 to 31st December 2004 and the Company refused to meet the Union, even declining to attend conciliation. The Court found the Union's recognition valid and disposed of the dispute by ordering immediate negotiations, rejecting the Company's requests for referral back.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Registration of a union under the Trade Unions Act and recognition by the employer confer locus standi on the union to negotiate collective agreements on behalf of all unionisable employees.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.That the Company should negotiate forthwith with the Union new terms and conditions of employment or service for all the unionisable employees in its establishment

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

Wrote the judgment

OW
majority

Wrote the judgment

JK
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Section 8 of the Trade Disputes Act, Cap. 234 (now repealed), on referral by the Minister for Labour and Human Resource Development with a statutory certificate from the Labour Commissioner under Section 14(9)(e) of the Act

Relief refused

#

The Company's prayer that the matter be referred back to the parties for fresh negotiations on terms acceptable to the Company

The Court instead found the Union had locus standi and ordered the Company to negotiate forthwith; the award was made ex-parte as the Company failed to appear at the hearing.

p. 3

Costs

No costs order made in the award.

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.

the intention of the Legislature in enacting Section 5(2) of the Act (now repealed) was to completely merge the identity of the individual employee into the trade unions, which are for all intents and purposes “Collective Bargaining Agents”
p. 4Trade unions as collective bargaining agents
In our view, therefore, this is enough to confer locus standi on the Union to negotiate with the Company, on behalf of all the unionisable employees, in its school.
p. 4Locus standi of recognised trade union
Accordingly, we AWARD and ORDER that the Company should negotiate forthwith the Union new terms and conditions of employment or service for all the unionisable employees of in its establishment.
p. 4Final orders / disposition

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Typographical errors in the judgment, e.g. 'efiective', 'stafi', 'Ofice', 'Febraury', and inconsistent date formatting

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions, Hospitals & Allied Workers v Imani School Ltd (Cause 22 of 2007)  (Employment and Labour) [2008] KEIC 3 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2008). Cause 22 of 2007. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keic/2008/3/eng@2008-02-20

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