Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedELRC Cause (Nairobi) – Notice of Motion dated 8th December 2020· [2021] KEELRC 1159 (KLR)

Kenya Union of Commercial Food & Allied Workers v Hypermart Limited [2021] KEELRC 1159 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
22 July 2021
1,868 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a union's bid for recognition because it proved only 20 of 179 employees were members, far short of the simple majority the law requires.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant Union filed a Notice of Motion dated 8th December 2020 seeking interim orders restraining the Respondent employer from victimising or intimidating employees on account of trade union membership, restraining it from forcing members to withdraw membership, and compelling the deduction and remittance of union dues from employees who had signed check-off sheets served on 14th February 2020. The Union asserted it had recruited 114 of 158 unionisable employees (72.2%), meeting the simple majority threshold under Section 54 of the Labour Relations Act, and alleged that the Respondent terminated 14 employees for recruiting colleagues and coerced withdrawals during conciliation. The Respondent, through its Head of Human Resources, opposed the motion, asserting only 20 of its 179 employees were Union members, questioning the authenticity of the check-off forms, denying victimisation, and stating the 14 employees were declared redundant in separate proceedings before the ELRC. Both parties filed submissions; the Union relied on Articles 41 of the Constitution and Sections 4, 5, 48 and 54 of the Labour Relations Act, while the Respondent cited authorities on the need for documentary proof of a simple majority and the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities. The court framed the matter as one of recognition under Section 54(1). Adopting the Conciliator's finding that the Union had recruited only 20 of 179 employees, the court held this fell below the requisite simple majority and did not meet the recognition threshold. The application was dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Union met the simple majority recognition threshold under Section 54(1) of the Labour Relations Act

Holding

The Union did not meet the threshold; the Conciliator found only 20 members out of 179 employees, far below the simple majority required for recognition

Reasoning

The court framed the dispute as one of recognition under Section 54(1), which requires a simple majority of unionisable employees. The Conciliator's determination that the Union had recruited only 20 of 179 employees was below the requisite minimum. The Union's claim of 114 out of 158 members (72.2%) was not proved, as the employer rebutted the check-off forms with employee statements and the Union failed to discharge its evidential burden.

p. 2
02

Whether the Union discharged its burden of proving the check-off forms and allegations of victimisation

Holding

The Union failed to prove its allegations on a balance of probabilities; pleadings and assertions are not evidence

Reasoning

Relying on authority cited by the Respondent, the court accepted that he who alleges must prove. The employer questioned the authenticity of the check-off forms and produced employee statements disclaiming membership; the Union did not rebut these discrepancies or prove the alleged bias of the Conciliator or the victimisation of 14 employees, who the Respondent said were declared redundant in separate proceedings.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A trade union must recruit a simple majority of an employer's unionisable employees before the employer is obliged to recognise it under Section 54(1) of the Labour Relations Act
  • A conciliator's finding on union membership that falls below the simple majority threshold defeats a claim for recognition and dues deduction

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claimant's Notice of Motion dated 8th December 2020 is dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Labour Relations ActSection 54(1)
  • Labour Relations ActSection 54
  • Labour Relations ActSection 48
  • Labour Relations ActSections 4 & 5
  • Labour Relations ActSection 48(3)
  • Evidence Act, Cap 80 Laws of KenyaSections 106, 107, 108 and 109
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 41

Cases cited (7)

  • Kenya Chemical & Allied Workers Union v Strategic Industries Limited
    [2016] eKLR
  • Kenya National Private Security Workers Union v Watchdog Limited
    [2018] eKLR (Nairobi ELRC Cause No. 127 of 2013)
  • CMC Aviation Ltd v Kenya Airways Ltd (Cruisair Ltd)
    [1978] eKLR (Nairobi Civil Application No. 12 of 1978)
  • Alfred Kioko Muteti v Timothy Miheso and Another
    [2015] eKLR (Nairobi HCCC 232 of 2012)
  • Bakery, Confectionery, Food Manufacturing and Allied Workers Union [K] v Mombasa Maize Millers Limited & Another
    [2017] eKLR
  • Scientific Research International Technical & Allied Workers Union v Kenya Agricultural Research Institute & Another
    [2013] eKLR
  • KUCFAW v Hypermart Limited (Ramtons)
    ELRC Cause E663 of 2020
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over trade disputes and recognition of trade unions under the Labour Relations Act, 2007 (Sections 48 and 54)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Commercial Food & Allied Workers v Hypermart Limited [2021] KEELRC 1159 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). ELRC Cause (Nairobi) – Notice of Motion dated 8th December 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1159/eng@2021-07-22

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