Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedIndustrial Cause (memorandum of claims filed 13.6.2013)· [2013] KEELRC 702 (KLR)

Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Eldoret Steel Mills Ltd [2013] KEELRC 702 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya
3 July 2013
HWHellen Wasilwa
1,191 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

#

A Kenyan court refused to reinstate 81 locked-out workers but ordered the employer to pay service pay and certificates to those who could prove their claims.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Kenya Engineering Workers Union filed a memorandum of claims on 13.6.2013 on behalf of 81 employees of the respondent, alleging they were locked out of work on 12.4.2010 after joining the union, against a backdrop of a long recognition dispute in which Rika J had in Industrial Cause No. 130/2008 ordered the respondent to deduct union dues and sign a recognition agreement, leading to a CBA signed on 2.12.2011. Three claimant employees testified that they had served long periods (from 1997 and 2002), were engaged as casuals paid daily or weekly, and were dismissed without notice or a hearing after voting to join the union. The respondent denied any lock out, contending there was no recognition agreement, that the claim was misconceived, and that on the material date the workers staged a walk out of their own accord to unprocedurally terminate their services having secured jobs at a new steel mill in Kisumu, following which the District Labour Officer intervened and they were paid their dues and left. The court framed two issues: whether there was a lock out, and whether the remedies sought were available. It found there was unrest on 12.4.2010 in which workers were either locked out or walked out, holding that the respondent's failure to involve the union, whose existence and membership it knew of, meant the workers were entitled to payment of their dues either way. However, with only 3 of the 81 employees testifying and no list or authority produced, the court could not confirm that all 81 were locked out, and reinstatement for all was refused. Reinstatement was further unavailable because three years had lapsed. The court awarded service pay to the three testifying employees - Kshs 51,675 each for the first two (13 years) and Kshs 31,800 for the third (8 years) - and ordered certificates of service for each.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the 81 employees were locked out by the respondent

Holding

The court found there was unrest which led to some workers either being locked out or staging a walk out, and in either case the union's members were entitled to payment of their dues

Reasoning

The three witnesses testified they were asked to leave after joining the union, against a backdrop of a long recognition dispute resolved by Rika J in Industrial Cause No. 130/2008 and a CBA signed on 2.12.2011. The respondent knew of the union and that workers had joined it but refused to involve the union in the 12.4.2010 stalemate. Whether lock out or walk out, the workers remained entitled to payment of dues.

p. 2
02

Whether the claimants were entitled to the remedies sought

Holding

Only the 3 employees who testified proved their claims; they were awarded service pay and certificates of service, while reinstatement for all 81 was refused

Reasoning

Only 3 of the 81 alleged employees gave evidence, with no list of the 81 and no authority or affidavit for the 3 to testify for the rest, so the court could not establish that 81 workers were locked out. Reinstatement was also barred by the 3-year lapse. The 3 witnesses, whose prior employment was uncontested, were awarded service pay computed on their years of service and certificates of service.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where employees are locked out or walk out amid a union recognition dispute, the employer's refusal to involve the known union in resolving the stalemate is an omission entitling the affected employees to payment of their dues
  • Reinstatement is not available where substantial time has elapsed since separation

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Reinstatement refused for the 81 employees; no reinstatement ordered given lapse of 3 years since 2010 lock out
  2. 2.Each of the 3 employees who gave evidence compensated: 1st claimant KSH 51,675 service pay (13 years, 15 days salary per year worked)
  3. 3.2nd claimant KSH 51,675 service pay (13 years)
  4. 4.3rd claimant KSH 31,800 service pay (8 years from 2002)
  5. 5.Each of the 3 employees to be issued with a certificate of service
Jurisdiction invoked
Industrial Court jurisdiction over employment and labour relations disputes (trade dispute between union and employer)

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.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Eldoret Steel Mills Ltd [2013] KEELRC 702 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2013). Industrial Cause (memorandum of claims filed 13.6.2013). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2013/702/eng@2013-07-03

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