Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2017] KEELRC 1858 (KLR)

Kenya Game Hunting and Safari Worker’s Union v African Quest Safaris Limited [2017] KEELRC 1858 (KLR)

Industrial Court (Employment and Labour Relations Court)
17 January 2017
HWHellen Wasilwa
1,296 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

#

Kenya's Employment Court confirmed that once a union signs up a simple majority of workers, the employer must sign a recognition agreement.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a first-instance employment dispute filed on 1/1/2013 in which the Claimant trade union sought an order compelling the Respondent employer to sign a recognition agreement. The Claimants alleged that their members, the Respondent's employees, had joined the union in August 2012, signed check-off forms, and that the Respondent began deducting union dues but then terminated union members and refused to execute a recognition agreement despite the union enjoying a simple majority. The dispute was reported to the Minister for Labour, a conciliator was appointed, and upon failure to agree a certificate issued enabling the matter to proceed to the Industrial Court under Section 54(7) of the Labour Relations Act, 2007. The Respondent, through FKE, denied that the union had a simple majority, contending that as at January 2013 only 18 of 39 unionisable employees (46.15%) had joined; it also challenged the union's constitutional competence to represent the sector and impugned the check-off lists as undated and containing departed staff. The court considered Section 54 of the Labour Relations Act, found the Respondent's unsigned certificates of service of no evidential value, and relied on the Labour Officer's conciliation report confirming 23 of 40 workers recruited. The court held that a simple majority existed from August 2012, found for the Claimants, and ordered the Respondent to sign a recognition agreement within 30 days, with costs to the Claimants.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Claimants had a simple majority of unionisable employees

Holding

The Claimants had recruited a simple majority of unionisable workers by August 2012, entitling them to recognition

Reasoning

The court weighed the documentary evidence: check-off forms signed on 27/8/2012, the deduction of union dues by the Respondent from October 2012, and the Labour Officer's conciliation report confirming 23 out of 40 unionisable workers had been recruited. The Respondent's attempt to impeach the membership list via certificates of service for three departed employees failed because those certificates were unsigned and of no effect, and check-off deductions had begun in August 2012.

p. 3
02

Whether the Respondent was obliged to sign a recognition agreement

Holding

Section 54 of the Labour Relations Act obliged the Respondent to recognise and conclude a written recognition agreement with the Claimants

Reasoning

Section 54(1) requires recognition where a union represents a simple majority, and Section 54(3) requires the parties to conclude a written recognition agreement. Having found a simple majority existed since 2012, and noting the conciliator's certificate of failure to agree, the court found the Claimants had established their case and ordered execution of the recognition agreement within 30 days.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer shall recognise a trade union for purposes of collective bargaining if that trade union represents a simple majority of unionisable employees

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Respondent do sign a recognition agreement with the Claimant within 30 days as prayed
  2. 2.Costs to the Claimants

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Labour Relations ActSection 54
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 54(7) of the Labour Relations Act, 2007 - referral of an unsettled recognition dispute to the Industrial Court following conciliation and a Certificate of Parties Failing to Agree

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Game Hunting and Safari Worker’s Union v African Quest Safaris Limited [2017] KEELRC 1858 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2017/1858/eng@2017-01-17

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