Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No. 483 of 2013· [2015] KEELRC 749 (KLR)

Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers v Naivas Limited [2015] KEELRC 749 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
17 July 2015
MNMathews Nderi NdumaHWHellen Wasilwa
1,373 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

#

The Employment Court refused to force Naivas to recognise the union because it had not signed up a simple majority of the company's workers.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant Union sued Naivas Limited seeking an order for recognition as the sole labour union of the Respondent's employees, deduction and remittance of union dues, protection of union members from victimisation, and an order that the Respondent engage in collective bargaining within thirty days. The Respondent opposed, contending the Union had not met the simple majority threshold under section 54(1) of the Labour Relations Act. The Union claimed 1,375 members out of 2,207 unionisable employees (62.3%), relying on Rika J's decision in Auto Express Kenya Ltd. The Respondent asserted a workforce of 3,487 with 200 in management, leaving 3,287 unionisable employees, and that 226 listed members had resigned, leaving 1,049 members (about 31.9%), well below 50+1%. The court framed two issues: whether the Union had attained a simple majority for recognition, and the remedy available. It accepted the Union had recruited 1,375 employees out of 3,287 unionisable employees in difficult circumstances involving alleged intimidation, transfers and dismissals, conduct the court observed amounted to unfair labour practice, but found those allegations insufficiently proved. The court held the Union had not recruited sufficient members to satisfy section 54(1) of attaining 50+1 members out of a unionisable workforce of 3,287. The recognition claim was dismissed; the Union was directed to continue recruiting, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Claimant Union had attained the simple majority threshold under section 54(1) of the LRA for recognition

Holding

No. On the Respondent's figures of 3,287 unionisable employees, the Union's membership (1,049 after resignations) fell far short of 50+1%.

Reasoning

The court treated the question as one of fact: how many unionisable employees the Respondent employed and how many were union members. The Respondent produced employee lists and affidavits of resignation/disavowal. The Union claimed 62.3% of 2,207 employees, but the court accepted a total unionisable workforce of 3,287, making the Union's recruitment insufficient to trigger the statutory recognition duty.

p. 3
02

Whether the Respondent's alleged intimidation, harassment, transfers and dismissals of union members amounted to an unfair labour practice

Holding

The court noted the conduct described would amount to unfair labour practice but found the allegations not sufficiently proved.

Reasoning

The court acknowledged the Union's recruitment efforts 'in very difficult circumstances' including alleged intimidation, harassment, hasty transfers and dismissals, observing such conduct would constitute an unfair labour practice. However, it expressly held these allegations had not been sufficiently proved, and instead enjoined the parties to foster good labour relations and respect constitutional rights and fundamental freedoms of employees and employers.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer shall recognise a trade union for collective bargaining only where that union represents a simple majority of unionisable employees, and the union bears the burden of establishing that majority on verifiable data.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for recognition of the Claimant Union by the Respondent employer is not successful
  2. 2.The Union should continue recruiting more members and remain vigilant to avoid undue hindrance in its pursuit to attain recognition from the Respondent
  3. 3.Each party to meet their own costs of the suit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Labour Relations Act, No. 14 of 2012section 54(1)
  • Labour Relations Act, No. 14 of 2012section 54(8)
  • Labour Relations Act, No. 14 of 2012section 57
  • Labour Relations Actsection 54(1) (cited as 'Labour Relations Act 2007' in paragraph 18)
  • The Constitution of Kenya 2010rights and fundamental freedoms of employees and employers

Cases cited (2)

  • Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers Vs Auto Express Kenya Ltd
    Industrial Cause No. 257 of 2011
  • Kenya Union of Printing, Publishing, Paper Manufacturers Pulp & Packaging Industries Vs Raffia Bags (EA) Limited
    Industrial Cause No. 160 of 2013
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act, No. 14 of 2012 and the Constitution of Kenya 2010 (labour dispute over trade union recognition)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers v Naivas Limited [2015] KEELRC 749 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Cause No. 483 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/749/eng@2015-07-16

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