Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause 799 of 2010· [2013] KEELRC 397 (KLR)

KENYA UNION OF JOURNALISTS AND ALLIED WORKERS V NATION MEDIA GROUP LIMITED & ANOTHER [2013] KEELRC 397 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya
26 April 2013
3,329 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Industrial Court confirmed CBAs cover all unionisable employees, but dismissed the union's claim because it lacked evidence proving which workers were denied benefits.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Kenya Union of Journalists and Allied Workers claimed that Nation Media Group Limited and the Standard Group Limited breached the 2008-2010 registered Collective Bargaining Agreement by extending its salary and anniversary increments only to their members (19 of the 1st Respondent's and 9 of the 2nd Respondent's employees) rather than to all unionisable employees. The union sought enforcement of the CBA, nullification of appointment letters excluding union representation, payment of increments to all unionisable employees, and costs. Both Respondents argued the CBA bound only the union's members, that non-members had negotiated individual contracts, that the union lacked locus standi over non-members, and that the claim was unsupported by particulars. The Court held, consistently with its earlier preliminary ruling of 27th October 2011, that a registered CBA is not an ordinary commercial contract governed by privity: under Section 59 of the Labour Relations Act it binds all unionisable employees, and recognition is granted to a union as sole collective bargaining agent for all employees eligible for membership. It endorsed the agency shop model adopted by the parties, holding agency fees do not violate freedom of association. However, on the evidence the Claim failed: the union's bare lists of employees were unverified, included supervisory staff excluded under the Recognition Agreement, and were unsupported by pay slips or testimony. The 2007 appointment letter relied on predated the CBA and had no nexus with the dispute. The Claim was dismissed in its entirety with no order on costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Scope of CBA application - members only or all unionisable employees

Holding

The CBA applies to all unionisable employees, not only union members; a registered CBA is not a commercial contract governed by privity

Reasoning

Section 59 of the Labour Relations Act provides that a collective agreement binds the parties, all unionisable employees of the employer, and that its terms are incorporated into every covered employee's contract. Recognition is granted to a union as representative of all employees eligible for membership, not members alone. Agency fee provisions under Sections 48 and 49 confirm the union is sole collective bargaining agent even for non-members.

p. 4
02

Evidentiary burden on the union to prove denial of CBA benefits

Holding

The Claimant failed to prove which employees were eligible and denied benefits

Reasoning

The union's lists contained only names without job categorisations, pay slips or testimony. They included supervisory staff expressly excluded under the Recognition Agreement (Editor/Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor/Managing Editor, News Editor/Chief Reporter, Chief Sub-Editor). Affected employees should have been called to testify. The court could not find on eligibility from bare lists.

p. 5
03

Whether the Owino letter of 6th July 2010 was an admission

Holding

The letter did not admit liability; it related to a separate dispute over agency fees

Reasoning

The letter seemed to refer to another dispute, Industrial Court Cause 545 [N] of 2004, where agency fee orders had issued, and was written a week before the Claim was filed. The union should have called the employees who disowned it in that correspondence to testify rather than relying on the letter as an admission.

p. 5
04

Validity of appointment letters excluding union representation

Holding

Such clauses would violate the Bill of Rights, but no order could issue on a 2007 letter predating the CBA and the Labour Relations Act

Reasoning

The letter to Michael Bwire Mugwang'a dated 7th August 2007 predated the CBA, was not shown to be the standard or current letter at the material time, and had no nexus with the dispute. The court nonetheless warned employers to conform to the new constitutional age by shredding such letters and rewriting employment terms.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • A registered collective agreement binds all unionisable employees, not only union members, and its terms are incorporated into individual contracts of employment
  • A trade union has capacity to seek interpretation of a CBA on all matters arising under it, without restriction
  • Trade union membership is not what determines the scope of CBA application; the focus is on eligibility for union membership
  • Letters of appointment barring unionisable employees from trade union membership would violate the Bill of Rights

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Award dismissing the Claim in its totality
  2. 2.No order on the costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Labour Relations ActSection 59
  • Labour Relations ActSection 2
  • Labour Relations ActSection 48
  • Labour Relations ActSection 49
  • Labour Relations Act Number 14 of 2007
  • Industrial Relations CharterStandard Recognition Agreement
  • Constitution of KenyaBill of Rights
Jurisdiction invoked
Labour Relations Act No. 14 of 2007; dispute over a registered Collective Bargaining Agreement within the Industrial Court's jurisdiction

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (4)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "KENYA UNION OF JOURNALISTS AND ALLIED WORKERS V NATION MEDIA GROUP LIMITED & ANOTHER [2013] KEELRC 397 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2013). Cause 799 of 2010. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2013/397/eng@2013-04-26

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