Banking, Insurance and Finance Union v Middle East Bank (K) Limited [2020] KEELRC 1869 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that four Middle East Bank employees were wrongly denied union membership and are owed wage arrears under the 2017 CBA.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Competency of the Cause without the Kenya Bankers Association
The Cause was competent; the Association's participation was not mandatory
The Bank relied on BIFU v Bank of India, an industry-wide standards case. The Court distinguished it: this dispute did not seek to set uniform banking standards but sought interpretation of whether individual Grievants were excluded by existing instruments. The Court had to examine the Grievants' individual rights against standards already agreed, so the Association's absence was not fatal.
Whether the Grievants are unionisable
Yes; they are unionisable and validly joined the Union
Applying the Industrial Relations Charter, recognition agreement and CBA exclusion clause, the Court examined job descriptions beyond titles. The Grievants had no supervisory, disciplinary or policy-coordination functions, no demonstrated confidential functions beyond ordinary bank employees, and no organogram showed supervision of subordinates. Designations as 'Officer' were potentially misleading. The employer failed to discharge its burden of showing exclusion.
Disturbance allowance for Florence Munga
Declined for lack of proof
The Union claimed Kshs 235,406/- as disturbance allowance for Florence Munga but adduced no proof of entitlement. Relief was therefore refused on that head.
Legal principles established
#- The right to join a trade union, including for management staff, is guaranteed but not absolute; a reasonable restriction excludes certain management staff
- Unionisability is determined by both designation/title and the actual job description and responsibilities against the exclusion clauses, not titles alone
- The burden lies on the employer to demonstrate that an employee falls within the excluded non-unionisable category
- Non-joinder of the Kenya Bankers Association is not fatal to an individual-bank unionisability dispute
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the Grievants are unionisable employees and are covered by the collective bargaining agreement in effect from 2017
- 2.The Respondent to pay the Grievants wage increment arrears: Stephen Mungai Kshs 316,248/-; Irene Wanjiku Gichuhi Kshs 280,970/-; Florence Munga Kshs 409,591/-; Davis Onamu Kshs 398,348/-
- 3.Each party to bear own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 20(2) and 24 of the Constitution; labour dispute referred after conciliation (Labour Relations Act trade dispute process); ELRC original jurisdiction
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Tailors and Textiles Workers Union v Vajas Manufacturers Limited (Cause 680 of 2012) [2025] KEELRC 1 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 1 (KLR)16 Jan 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Banking, Insurance and Finance Union v Middle East Bank (K) Limited [2020] KEELRC 1869 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the excerpt (Cause commenced 26 November 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1869/eng@2020-01-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.