KENYA UNION OF DOMESTIC, HOTELS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL, HOSPITALS AND ALLIED WORKERS V COMMISSION FOR HIGHER EDUCATION [2013] KEELRC 310 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Industrial Court ordered the Commission for Higher Education to sign a union recognition agreement because the union met all legal requirements.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent's employees fall within the scope of the Claimant union's constitution
The Respondent, although a regulatory and quality control agency, falls under 'other institutions and projects associated with educational institutions, training centres, universities and university colleges' in Rule 3 of the union constitution, so its employees are eligible to join the union.
The Respondent described itself as a regulatory and quality control agency for higher learning in universities. The court read Rule 3 of the union constitution, which extends membership to employees of educational institutions including universities and to other institutions and projects associated with them. On that construction, the Respondent's employees are covered by the union's constitution, and refusal to sign a recognition agreement on eligibility grounds was not a proper reason.
Whether the union had attained a simple majority of eligible employees
The union had recruited 32 of 47 unionisable employees, being over 68%, which exceeds a simple majority; the Respondent did not dispute this and had faithfully deducted and remitted dues.
The Claimant attached check-off forms and lists of recruited employees to its Memorandum of Claim and showed that the Respondent had complied by deducting union dues and remitting them to the union's gazette account. The Respondent did not dispute this fact. The court therefore found the second criterion for recognition satisfied.
Whether there was any rival union claiming to represent the Respondent's employees
There was no rival union; the Claimant asserted this and the Respondent did not dispute it, satisfying the third criterion.
The court listed three requirements for recognition: constitutional coverage, simple majority, and absence of a rival union. The Claimant submitted there was no other union claiming to represent the employees, and the Respondent did not controvert this. The third criterion was therefore met, and with all three criteria satisfied the union was entitled to recognition under Section 54 of the Labour Relations Act.
Legal principles established
#- The requirements for recognition of a union are that the union's constitution must cover the sector in which the employer operates, the union must command a simple majority of eligible employees, and there must be no rival union.
- A regulatory or quality assurance body associated with educational institutions falls within a union's constitutional scope where the constitution extends to institutions and projects associated with educational institutions.
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent to sign a recognition agreement with the Claimant within 30 days from the date of the award
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference of the dispute to the Industrial Court after conciliation following reporting to the Minister for Labour under the Labour Relations Act
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.
- Kenya Tertiary and Schools Workers’ Union (KETASWU) v Heltz Institute of Advanced Driving [2020] KEELRC 1419 (KLR)[2020] KEELRC 1419 (KLR)6 Mar 2020
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "KENYA UNION OF DOMESTIC, HOTELS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL, HOSPITALS AND ALLIED WORKERS V COMMISSION FOR HIGHER EDUCATION [2013] KEELRC 310 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2013). Cause 149 of 2010. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2013/310/eng@2013-05-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.