Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedCause No 1396 of 2016· [2018] KEELRC 1004 (KLR)

James Mwiathi Kimandu v Lauren International Flowers Limited [2018] KEELRC 1004 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
5 October 2018
ANAbuodha Jorum Nelson
410 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled employers cannot use settlement agreements to take away benefits workers already have under a registered Collective Bargaining Agreement.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant sought to set aside a conciliation agreement dated 7th June 2012 entered into with the respondent before a conciliator, on the ground that it violated clauses 22 and 25 of the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement. Under clause 22, members declared redundant were to receive redundancy benefits, and under clause 25 they were to receive gratuity. The conciliation agreement had purported to settle the dispute without payment of the clause 25 gratuity. The respondent resisted the claim, contending that the parties had engaged in dispute resolution from the onset and had settled the matter through the agreement signed by the claimant's representatives, so no dispute remained and the claimant could not resurrect the matter; it relied on Mary Wairimu Gitonga & 29 Others v Ken Knit (Kenya) Ltd. The court held that a CBA, once concluded and registered, becomes part of the employees' contracts of employment, and that under section 3(6) of the Employment Act statutory minimum terms cannot be varied or relinquished by agreement. The conciliation agreement, which deprived the grievants of gratuity benefits under clause 25, was an agreement to relinquish or vary a more favourable term to the detriment of the claimants and was therefore null and void to that extent. The court ordered that, in addition to redundancy benefits under clause 22, the grievants be paid their clause 25 dues as provided in the CBA. Judgment was delivered at Nairobi on 5th October 2018 by Abuodha Jorum Nelson, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of a conciliation agreement varying CBA benefits to employees' detriment

Holding

The conciliation agreement depriving grievants of gratuity under clause 25 of the CBA was null and void to that extent.

Reasoning

Once concluded and registered, a CBA forms part of the employment contract. Section 3(6) of the Employment Act renders any agreement to relinquish, vary or amend statutory minimum terms null and void. A fortiori, an agreement relinquishing a more favourable CBA term to the employees' detriment cannot stand, so the grievants retain both clause 22 redundancy benefits and clause 25 gratuity.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • A registered CBA becomes part of the employee's contract of employment and terms more favourable than statutory minimum cannot be relinquished or varied to the employee's detriment.
  • An agreement depriving employees of benefits under a more favourable CBA term is null and void.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.In addition to the redundancy benefits under clause 22 of the CBA, the grievants be paid their clause 25 dues as provided in the CBA

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 3(6)

Cases cited (1)

  • Mary Wairimu Gitonga & 29 Others Vs Ken Knit (Kenya) Ltd
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act and the registered CBA (specific enabling provision not stated in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "James Mwiathi Kimandu v Lauren International Flowers Limited [2018] KEELRC 1004 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No 1396 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1004/eng@2018-10-05

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