KENYA UNION OF COMMERCIAL, FOOD & ALLIED WORKERS v AVERY KENYA LTD [2003] KEELRC 9 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#General wage increase
Awarded 6.5% per year, or 13% for the two years, slightly above the Company's 5% offer but well below the Union's 20% demand, guided by ability to pay and consumer price indices
The EPD established entitlement based on consumer price indices of 7.37% per year (full compensation) or 5.53% per year (three-quarters of the cost-of-living rise). Balancing the Union's 20% demand against the Company's 5% offer, its moderate business performance and falling profits, the Court hiked the offer by 1.5% per year.
House allowance
Company's offer of 2.5% per year held too low; house allowance raised to 5% per year, or 10% for the two years
The Court noted the historical entitlement of 20% of basic wages, the scarcity and cost of reasonable accommodation in urban areas, and Section 9 of the Employment Act obliging employers to provide reasonable housing or sufficient rent. Guided by the Wage Guidelines and the legal position, it improved the Company's offer by a further 2.5% per year.
Mechanic's expenditure
Company's overall offer of 6.7% increased to 10%, with revised daily rates for breakfast, lunch, dinner and accommodation; harmonisation of the two technicians' expenditure recommended
Considering the parties' submissions and the EPD figures showing mechanics' expenditure of Kshs.794,804 in 1997 and Kshs.1.0 million in 1999 and electronic technicians' expenditure of Kshs.1.2 million and Kshs.1.7 million respectively, the Court hiked the Company's offer to an overall 10% and set new daily rates, while recommending harmonisation of the two categories.
Out of pocket expenses
New demand rejected
The Court found the demand duplicative of the mechanics' expenditure allowance, particularly in light of its recommendation that expenditure for mechanical and electronic technicians be harmonised, and therefore rejected it.
Legal principles established
#- The primary objective in deciding industrial disputes on wage increase is the ability of the company to pay and the restoration of peace and harmony in the industry
- Employees should not demand more than the business can afford
- Retrospective application of awards may be refused where financially disruptive to the employer
Court orders
#- 1.General wage increase of 6.5% each year, or 13% for the two years' period (improving the Company's offer of 5% per year by 1.5%)
- 2.House allowance increased to 5% each year, or 10% for the two years' period (improving the Company's offer of 2.5% per year by a further 2.5%)
- 3.Mechanic's expenditure awarded at an overall increase of 10%: Breakfast Shs.68.75, Lunch Shs.79.75, Dinner Kshs.115.50, Accommodation Kshs.275.00
- 4.Recommendation that the expenditure for mechanical and electronic technicians be harmonised to eliminate disparity
- 5.Out of pocket expenses demand rejected
- 6.Award, except on general wage increase, not to apply retrospectively
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Trade Disputes Act, Cap. 234, Section 14(7) and (9)(e) - Notification of Dispute with statutory certificate of the Labour Commissioner
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Mungai v Co-operative Bank of Kenya (Environment & Land Case 4 of 2018) [2022] KEELC 3248 (KLR)[2022] KEELC 3248 (KLR)28 Jul 2022
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "KENYA UNION OF COMMERCIAL, FOOD & ALLIED WORKERS v AVERY KENYA LTD [2003] KEELRC 9 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2003). Cause No. 10 of 2001. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2003/9/eng@2003-03-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.