Rift Valley Railways Workers Union (K) v Building And Construction Workers Union & another; Central Organisation of Trade Union & 3 others (Interested Party) [2020] KEELRC 1153 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court found a union dispute over SGR workers was already resolved, ruled the application spent, and ordered no costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Notice of Motion dated 10th April 2018 remained live for determination
The application was spent because the Claimant had been granted access to the premises by the 2nd Respondent and the 2nd/4th Interested Parties and was in the process of signing recognition agreements, and the 1st Respondent's interest had dissipated with completion of SGR Phase I
The court noted that both Respondents averred that representation was settled through conciliation in 2015. The Claimant confirmed in court that it had been granted access by both employers and was in the process of signing recognition agreements. Parties had agreed that the interests of the 1st Respondent and 2nd and 3rd Interested Parties had dissipated, and the Claimant sought removal of parties rather than withdrawal of the whole claim, leaving a pending issue with the 2nd Respondent. The court therefore found the application spent.
Whether the scope of representation (demarcation) between the Claimant and the 1st Respondent required determination
The 1st Respondent's scope of representation was clearly defined (per the Conciliator's Report of 8th January 2015 and its registered Constitution) and no determination was necessary on this application
The court observed that the Conciliator's Report dated 08/01/2015 recommended that the 1st Respondent retain jurisdiction over the 2nd Respondent's construction employees, and that the 1st Respondent's registered constitution confines its membership to building construction and civil engineering, including construction of railway lines. The court considered the scope clearly defined and the Claimant's access already granted, mooting the demarcation question.
Whether Causes 1409 of 2016 and 587 of 2014 could be consolidated with this suit
Consolidation could not be determined because the Claimant did not attach the pleadings in those Causes
Prayer 4 sought consolidation of Causes 1409 of 2016 and 587 of 2014 with this Cause. The court found it could not assess consolidation because the Claimant failed to exhibit the pleadings in those suits, denying the parties an opportunity to respond and the court the material needed to rule.
Legal principles established
#- Where the interest of a party in a dispute has dissipated by reason of events (completion of the SGR Phase I and grant of access to the Claimant), the application becomes spent and need not be determined on the merits
Court orders
#- 1.Finding that the Notice of Motion dated 10th April 2018 is spent
- 2.No orders for costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over trade union representation disputes under the Labour Relations Act; access to union activities anchored on Articles 36 and 41 of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rift Valley Railways Workers Union (K) v Building And Construction Workers Union & another; Central Organisation of Trade Union & 3 others (Interested Party) [2020] KEELRC 1153 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Cause No 120 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1153/eng@2020-04-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.