Kenya Chemical Workers Union v Krystalline Salt Limited (Cause 77 of 2019) [2022] KEELRC 1124 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Sector status of the claimant union
The claimant is the sector trade union for the respondent's enterprise under section 54(8).
The claimant pleaded it represents workers including in the sector of manufacturing salts, which is the respondent's enterprise, and exhibited its constitution showing that sector of representation. The respondent, while mentioning rival unions' requests, provided no evidence of such requests and never pleaded that the claimant was not the sector union, and did not deny the substance of the claimant's pleading on the sector.
Attainment of simple majority for recognition
The claimant established that it had recruited a simple majority of unionisable employees as at the time the dispute was reported, and the parties had agreed at the FKE meeting of May 30, 2019 to conclude the recognition agreement.
Applying the Court of Appeal's holding that simple majority is a question of fact at the time the dispute is lodged, the Court found the claimant's Forms S and the May 2019 union deduction report (343 employees) established simple majority of the pleaded 600 workforce. The respondent's letter of May 24, 2019 raised only minor numbering anomalies, its reply of June 28, 2019 did not deny the agreement to conclude a recognition agreement, and its later pleading of 216 members out of 664 failed to address numbers as at the date of reporting the dispute.
Validity of respondent's concerns over conciliator's independence and particulars of the dispute
The concerns were misconceived; no real or perceived bias was established and the dispute was sufficiently detailed.
The Secretary General's telephone call to a Ministry officer was an open follow-up on delayed appointment of a conciliator, who had already been appointed on July 22. The respondent had no valid ground to boycott the September 25, 2019 conciliation meeting. The letters appointing the conciliator and inviting parties set out the dispute with sufficient material detail for the respondent to file a replying memorandum.
Union dues deductions under sections 48 and 48(6)
The respondent must continue deducting and remitting dues for all duly recruited unionisable employees; for employees who resigned in writing per section 48(6), deductions must stop, but resignations do not impair the attained simple majority.
Section 48(6) prohibits deductions from an employee who has notified the employer in writing of resignation from the union. The respondent must therefore stop deductions for such employees where notified. However, recognition under section 54(1) is measured at the time the dispute was reported, so subsequent resignations cannot undo the threshold already achieved. Where no compliance occurred, deductions must commence and continue with effective payment at the end of June 2022.
Legal principles established
#- Whether a simple majority under section 54(1) was achieved is a matter of fact measured at the time the dispute was reported to the Cabinet Secretary, not at a later date.
- An employer may not deduct union dues from an employee who has notified it in writing of resignation from the union under section 48(6), but such resignation does not impair the simple majority threshold already attained for recognition purposes.
- Where the employer raised no objections to the substance of a draft recognition agreement, the claimant having attained simple majority, the employer ought to sign it.
Court orders
#- 1.The respondent to sign the draft recognition agreement by 30.06.2022 to pave way for parties' conclusion of a collective agreement as per section 54(1) as read with section 57 of the Labour Relations Act, 2007
- 2.Declaration that the respondent is obligated to continue deducting and remitting union dues with respect to all duly recruited unionisable employees as provided for in section 48 of the Act; where there has been no compliance, deduction to commence and continue effective payment for end of June 2022
- 3.The respondent to pay only 50% costs of the suit to be agreed upon within 30 days from the date of the judgment, failing to be taxed in the usual manner
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Labour Relations Act, 2007 (trade dispute over recognition agreement and union dues) under the Court's employment and labour relations jurisdiction
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Chemical Workers Union v Krystalline Salt Limited (Cause 77 of 2019) [2022] KEELRC 1124 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the judgment (memorandum of claim filed 04.11.2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/1124/eng@2022-05-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.