Kenya Hotels And Allied Workers Union v Sentrim Kenya Limited & another [2015] KEELRC 1102 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ordered a hotel to recognise its workers' union and deduct dues, confirming that a simple majority is enough.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Recognition threshold under Section 54(1) of the Labour Relations Act
The Claimant attained a simple majority (35 employees, said to be 80% of unionisable staff) and is entitled to recognition by the 1st Respondent
The Claimant produced a schedule of recruited members (Appendix S 14) who had withdrawn from the 2nd Respondent. The Respondents, though served, filed no response and did not attend the hearing, so the evidence went uncontroverted. The court held the simple-majority threshold under Section 54(1) was met and ordered recognition and commencement of CBA negotiations within 60 days.
Encroachment on the Claimant's jurisdiction by the 2nd Respondent
Encroachment does not arise where workers join a union of their own volition; the earlier ruling in Cause 48 of 2007 predates the 2010 Constitution and is not binding
The court anchored its finding on Article 41(2)(c) guaranteeing every worker the right to form, join and participate in a trade union. Where a worker voluntarily withdraws from one union and joins another catering for his needs, there is no unlawful encroachment. A pre-2010 ruling restricting workers' choice curtails this constitutional right and cannot bind the court.
Entitlement to orders sought in an undefended claim
Claimant granted recognition order, remittance of union dues from January 2015 and an injunction against victimisation
The claim proceeded ex parte after the Respondents failed to file responses or attend the hearing on 13/4/2015 despite service. With the uncontroverted evidence of recruitment and withdrawal of members from the 2nd Respondent, the court granted recognition, dues remittance and protection from victimisation, but did not grant the declaration of illegality of the existing recognition agreement.
Legal principles established
#- Where a union has recruited a simple majority of an employer's unionisable staff as envisaged under Section 54(1) of the Labour Relations Act, the employer ought to recognise it
- A worker's free choice to join a union of his volition means another union cannot be said to have encroached; pre-2010 rulings that curtail workers' freedom of association are not binding under the Constitution of 2010
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st Respondent is directed to recognise the Claimant for purposes of collective bargaining and commence negotiations for a Collective Bargaining Agreement within 60 days
- 2.The 1st Respondent to remit union dues for employees who have joined the Claimant as per Appendix S 14, with remittances effective from January 2015
- 3.The 1st Respondent is prohibited from victimising the Claimant members because of their union affiliation
- 4.The 1st Respondent to pay the costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Jurisdiction of the Industrial Court of Kenya under the Labour Relations Act, 2007 over trade disputes (refusal to recognise a trade union and deduct union dues); Article 41 of the Constitution on workers' rights
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Hotels And Allied Workers Union v Sentrim Kenya Limited & another [2015] KEELRC 1102 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Cause No. 2145 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/1102/eng@2015-05-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.