Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherCause (stated in judgment; related Cause No. 2343 of 2017)· [2019] KEELRC 2503 (KLR)

Bollore Africa Logistics Limited & another v Aviation and Airport Servicers Workers Union (K); Kenya Aviation Workers Union (Interested Parties) [2019] KEELRC 2503 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
18 January 2019
952 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court confirmed Bollore's valid recognition agreement is with the Aviation Workers Union, and agreements signed with a rival union were null and void.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The two claimants, companies within the Bollore Group providing transport, logistics and container cargo services, sued the Aviation and Airport Services Workers Union (Kenya) (the Respondent) with the Kenya Aviation Workers Union cited as Interested Party. They sought declarations that any strike called pursuant to the Respondent's notice dated 25th May 2018 would be unprotected and illegal under Part X of the Labour Relations Act, that the matters in the notice were regulated by the CBA between the claimants and the Interested Party and were sub judice, an injunction restraining industrial action, and costs. Before judgment, the court delivered its decision in Cause No. 2343 of 2017 on 28th September 2018, in which it found no termination of the recognition agreement between the 1st claimant and the Respondent, no proof of the Interested Party's majority membership, bad faith in the Interested Party signing a recognition agreement the day before a Court of Appeal stay decision, and no capacity on the part of the Respondent to contract with the Interested Party. The recognition agreement and CBA between the 1st claimant and the Interested Party were declared null and void. Consequently the substratum of the present claim collapsed; the court marked the claim as terminated with no order as to costs, and declared the Respondent's recognition agreement and CBA with the 1st claimant valid and in force.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of the recognition agreement between the 1st claimant and the Interested Party

Holding

The recognition agreement signed on 2nd February 2017 was declared a nullity, being signed without proof of majority membership and in bad faith the day before delivery of a Court of Appeal decision on a stay

Reasoning

In Cause No. 2343 of 2017 the court found no evidence of termination of the recognition agreement with the Respondent, no proof that the Interested Party achieved majority membership, and bad faith in signing the agreement the day before the Court of Appeal decision, rendering the agreement null and void.

p. 2
02

Effect of the nullified agreements on the present claim

Holding

Since the recognition agreement and CBA between the 1st claimant and the Interested Party were declared null and void, the substratum of the present claim collapsed

Reasoning

The claim was premised on the subsistence of the recognition agreement and CBA with the Interested Party and on matters being regulated thereby or sub judice. With those instruments declared null and void in Cause No. 2343 of 2017, there was no substratum left for the declarations and injunction sought.

p. 2
03

Validity of the agreements between the 1st claimant and the Respondent

Holding

The Recognition Agreement and CBA between the 1st claimant and the Respondent are valid and in force

Reasoning

Having found that the Interested Party's agreements were nullities and that the Respondent had a subsisting recognition agreement with the 1st claimant, the court declared the Respondent's agreements valid and in force in its final orders.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A recognition agreement signed without proof of majority membership, and in the face of a subsisting recognition agreement with another union, is a nullity
  • A union cannot negotiate a CBA where there is no valid recognition agreement between it and the employer

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claim herein is marked as terminated
  2. 2.No orders for costs
  3. 3.Declaration that the Recognition Agreement and Collective Bargaining Agreement for the period 2016–2017 between the 1st claimant and the Interested Party are null and void
  4. 4.Declaration that both the Recognition Agreement and Collective Bargaining Agreement between the 1st claimant and the Respondent are valid and in force

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Labour Relations ActPart X
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act and the court's employment dispute jurisdiction

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Bollore Africa Logistics Limited & another v Aviation and Airport Servicers Workers Union (K); Kenya Aviation Workers Union (Interested Parties) [2019] KEELRC 2503 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Cause (stated in judgment; related Cause No. 2343 of 2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/2503/eng@2019-01-18

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