Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2013] KEELRC 527 (KLR)

TRANSPORT AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION (K) V AFRICAN SKY CHARTERS [2013] KEELRC 527 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya
24 January 2013
1,046 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, an employer represented by advocate Mr. H. Okeche, applied by a notice dated 7th February 2011 to review, set aside and vacate an award delivered by Justice Paul Kosgei on 2nd December 2010, in which the Claimant union was granted recognition by the Respondent employer. The application, supported by the affidavit of Mary Regina Thomson, argued that the award violated the law because the union never attained a simple majority, that at the time of hearing the union had only 2 members against the minimum of 5 required for check-off, and that the landscape had changed since the court had authorised registration of a rival union, the Aviation and Allied Workers Union. The Claimant opposed, asserting there was no new evidence, that it had recruited 10 of 16 eligible employees achieving a simple majority at recruitment, that members continued paying dues directly, and that a rival union did not arise. The court considered Rule 32(1) of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010. Noting that the judge who made the award was no longer on the court, the Principal Judge deemed it just to hear the application. The court traced the award's basis in Section 5(2) of the repealed Trade Disputes Act and the original findings: consensus, no rival union, and 10 of 15 unionisable employees recruited. It held membership is reckoned at the time of the recognition application, found no new facts, no error on the face of the record, and no breach of written law. The application was dismissed with costs on 24th January 2013.

Key legal issues

#
01

Grounds for review under Rule 32(1) of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010

Holding

No new and important matter, no error apparent on the face of the record, and no breach of written law was established to warrant review of the recognition award

Reasoning

The court analysed the award against the four limbs of Rule 32(1). The original award was based on Section 5(2) of the repealed Trade Disputes Act, and the judge had made findings of fact that the Claimant was the correct union, there was no rival union, and a simple majority of 10 out of 15 employees had been recruited. The applicant disclosed no new facts, and subsequent resignations could not alter the position since membership is assessed at the time of the recognition application. The resignations were earlier found to be products of employer intimidation.

p. 3
02

Material time for assessing union membership for recognition

Holding

Membership strength is determined at the time of recruitment/application for recognition, not at the time of the review application

Reasoning

The respondent argued that three employees had resigned and a 2010 survey showed diminished support, so the union no longer commanded a simple majority. The original judge rejected the resignations as voluntary, finding they resulted from harassment and intimidation, and declared the employer's survey an illegal activity amounting to intimidation. On review, the court reaffirmed that the threshold of 51% (10 of 15 employees) must be assessed at the time of application, and nothing on record showed the threshold was not met then.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The percentage of union members recruited is reckoned at the time the application for recognition is made, not subsequently
  • Where the judge who made the award is no longer a judge of the court, the court may justly and equitably consider a review application

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Application for review, setting aside and vacating the Award of 2nd December 2010 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Claimant/Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010Rule 32(1), Rule 32(2)
  • Trade Disputes Act Cap. 234 Laws of Kenya (repealed)Section 5(2)
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 32(1) of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010 (application for review of an award)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "TRANSPORT AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION (K) V AFRICAN SKY CHARTERS [2013] KEELRC 527 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2013). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2013/527/eng@2013-01-24

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