Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment as provided· [2018] KEELRC 1386 (KLR)

Donald Julius Omala Okutoyi v Athi River Mining [2018] KEELRC 1386 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
27 July 2018
BOByram Ongaya
555 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

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled a management employee who wasn't a union member cannot claim terminal benefits under a union CBA.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, employed by the respondent from 01.08.1992 until retirement on age grounds on 31.08.2011, claimed terminal dues arrears of Kshs. 835,257.00 with interest and costs. He alleged membership of the Kenya Quarry & Mine Workers Union, which had a CBA with the respondent, and that clause 9(iv)(c) of the CBA entitled him to 30 days' pay for every completed year of service, computed on his basic pay of Kshs. 105,500.00, yielding Kshs. 2,004,500.00 before deductions. The respondent paid him Kshs. 96,470.00 in retirement dues and Kshs. 250,000.00 ex-gratia, having calculated dues at 15 days' pay per year. The respondent denied the CBA applied, contending the claimant was not a union member and served as Personnel Manager in management, precluding union membership. The court found the claimant was part of management, had signed CBAs on behalf of management (including one dated 14.05.2002), and the union itself confirmed by letter dated 02.01.2012 that he was never a member. Relying on section 59 of the Labour Relations Act, 2007, the court held a CBA binds only the parties and unionisable employees, and its terms are incorporated only into the contracts of covered employees. The claimant was not such an employee, so clause 9 did not govern his retirement dues. The suit was dismissed with costs to the respondent on 27th July, 2018.

Key legal issues

#
01

Applicability of a CBA to a management employee who was not a union member

Holding

The CBA, including clause 9 on terminal dues, did not apply to the claimant's retirement dues

Reasoning

The claimant served in management as Personnel Manager and even signed CBAs on behalf of management, such as the one signed on 14.05.2002, showing he was not unionisable. The union itself confirmed by letter dated 02.01.2012 that the claimant had never been a member. Section 59 of the Labour Relations Act, 2007 extends a CBA only to parties and unionisable employees; the claimant fell outside that category, so clause 9's formula of 30 days' pay per completed year was unavailable to him.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Under section 59 of the Labour Relations Act, 2007, a CBA binds the parties to it and all unionisable employees of the employer party, and its terms are incorporated into the contracts of employment of covered employees; it does not apply to employees outside unionisable grades or non-members not covered

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claimant's suit is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the suit awarded to the respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Labour Relations Act, 2007section 59
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and labour relations jurisdiction (Employment and Labour Relations Court Act); dispute over terminal dues under a CBA

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Donald Julius Omala Okutoyi v Athi River Mining [2018] KEELRC 1386 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1386/eng@2018-07-27

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