Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2014] KEELRC 833 (KLR)

Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Abyssina Iron And Steel Ltd [2014] KEELRC 833 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya (Employment and Labour Relations Court)
25 February 2014
1,477 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court ordered an employer to recognise a union representing over 84% of staff, ruling that outsourcing cannot be used to dodge union recognition.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimants, Kenya Engineering Workers Union, filed a Memo of Claim on 3.4.2013 after the respondents refused to sign a recognition agreement. The union submitted check-off forms signed by 259 and then 230 employees in June 2012, but the respondents failed to effect deductions or attend meetings to sign a recognition agreement. The union reported a trade dispute to the Minister for Labour under Section 62 of the Labour Relations Act; a conciliator appointed under Section 65(1) referred the parties to court under Section 73 after failed meetings. The respondents contested membership, with witnesses denying membership and contending some employees were outsourced to Jokali Hardling Services Limited, which was joined as an interested party. The parties agreed to a fact-finding poll conducted by the labour officer, confirmed on 23.1.2014, in which 261 of 295 voters chose to join the union. Holding issues arose on whether the union met the Section 54 simple majority threshold, whether outsourcing to Jokali was genuine, and entitlement to the prayers sought. The court found the poll established over 84% recruitment, satisfying Section 54(1) and Article 41(2) of the Constitution. Applying ILO Recommendation 198 indicators, the court found no evidence that Jokali controlled the employees, who were paid and controlled by the respondents; the outsourcing contention was a falsehood to avoid recognition obligations. The court ordered the respondents to forthwith recognize the claimants and enter negotiations within 30 days leading to a recognition agreement, in default of which execution to issue.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the claimants met the simple majority threshold under Section 54 of the Labour Relations Act

Holding

Yes - the poll conducted by the labour officer showed 261 of 295 employees voted to join the union, over 84% of unionisable employees, satisfying Section 54(1).

Reasoning

The court relied on the poll conducted by the County Labour Officer, witnessed by both parties and confirmed on 23.1.2014, in which 261 of 295 voters chose to join the union. This exceeded the simple majority required by Section 54(1) of the Labour Relations Act and was underpinned by the Article 41(2) constitutional right of every worker to form and join a trade union.

p. 2
02

Whether the alleged outsourcing of employees to Jokali Hardling Services Limited defeated the claim

Holding

No - no evidence showed Jokali controlled the employees; they were paid by and under the control of the respondents, so the outsourcing claim was a falsehood meant to avoid recognition obligations.

Reasoning

Applying ILO Recommendation 198 (2006) indicators of an employment relationship, the court found no evidence from Jokali that the employees were under its control or direction. Conversely, the employees demonstrated they were paid by and worked under the control of the respondents, rendering the outsourcing contention a device to evade recognition obligations.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer must recognize a trade union that represents a simple majority of unionisable employees.
  • Outsourcing cannot be used to deny a worker the right to union representation.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The respondents do forthwith recognize the claimants
  2. 2.The respondents enter into negotiations within 30 days leading to the signing of a recognition agreement, in default execution to issue
Jurisdiction invoked
Referred to the court by a conciliator under Section 73 of the Labour Relations Act, 2007

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Abyssina Iron And Steel Ltd [2014] KEELRC 833 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2014/833/eng@2014-02-25

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