Phillip Anyiego Gaya & 81 others v H. Young Co. E.A. Limited [2021] KEELRC 1068 (KLR)

Rule 9 permits a claim by one party on behalf of others with a similar cause of action, backed by a letter of authority signed by all. One listed claimant denied signing. The court held non-authorisation is confined to that claimant. The letter also contained specific authority to the 3 Claimants at its tail end, and Section 22 of the E&LRC Act permits union members to be represented by an advocate.

Clause 28(ii) makes allowances payable only after discussion involving the parties and the Safety and Health Committee under Section 9 of OSHA. All parties agreed no such discussions took place. The claimants' principal witness was a Time-Clerk, not an expert. OSHA's Second Schedule of occupational diseases is technically complex and requires expert testimony to establish exposure. Alleged workplace deaths were not linked to any hazard by evidence.

Pay slips showed house allowance was paid. Accommodation allowance paid to a few employees was tied to working overnight stops away from usual abodes, a safari-allowance concept under the CBA, and not payable as an invariable allowance. Section 33 of the Employment Act only obliges feeding where the contract provides for food. Transport was provided, so no travelling-hours allowance arose.

Wesley Koskei and Simon Muturi received accommodation and welding allowances, but these were situational — paid where an employee worked overnight or on extended duty. Without proof that the Claimants were in similar tasks or that the allowances were invariably on those pay slips, no discriminatory failure to pay was established.