Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially Allowednot stated in the extract· [2023] KEELRC 1803 (KLR)

Kenya Union of Entertainment & Music Industry Employees v Multi Media University of Kenya (Cause 759 of 2018) [2023] KEELRC 1803 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
27 July 2023
LNLINNET NDOLO
586 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan university employer was ordered to resume deducting and remitting union dues after stopping them unilaterally without following the law.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a dispute in the Employment and Labour Relations Court concerning remittance of union dues by a university (the Respondent) to the Claimant Union. The Court had directed the Respondent's Vice Chancellor, Prof Festus Kaberia, to appear and produce documents showing remittances. While some dues had been paid, the parties disputed whether any Union members remained in the Respondent's employment. The Respondent's Legal Officer, Wilson Kagwe, deponed in affidavits sworn on February 17, 2023 and March 27, 2023 that eight employees had ceased to be Union members following a July 20, 2020 University Council circular transforming the University Hotel into a hostel, with the employees absorbed into other departments. The Claimant's General Secretary, Job W Mucuha, countered that the Respondent adduced no evidence of the employees ceasing membership, and that no withdrawal had occurred in line with Section 48 of the Labour Relations Act. The Court held that Section 48 prescribes the procedure for an employee to leave a union - written communication to the employer and notification to the union - and that an employer cannot unilaterally stop deductions on the pretext of an internal departmental transfer. The Respondent's averments were unsupported by evidence, including no disclosure of the new positions supposedly placing the employees outside the Union's sector. The Court declared the unilateral cessation unlawful and ordered the Respondent to forthwith resume deduction and remittance of union dues, with each party bearing its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the unilateral stoppage of union dues deductions was lawful

Holding

It was unlawful; Section 48 of the Labour Relations Act prescribes the procedure, and the Respondent adduced no evidence to justify cessation.

Reasoning

Section 48 of the Labour Relations Act provides that an employee wishing to leave a union must write to the employer, who then notifies the union. The employer cannot unilaterally stop deductions merely because employees were redeployed to other departments. The Respondent's claims that the employees were absorbed into departments outside the Union's sector were unsupported by any evidence of the new positions assigned, so the cessation of deductions lacked evidentiary and legal foundation.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • It is not open to an employer to unilaterally stop deducting union dues on the pretext that an employee has been transferred departments; the Section 48 procedure must be followed.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Respondent to forthwith resume deduction and remittance of union dues on account of the Claimant's members within its establishment
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Dispute regarding remittance of union dues under the Labour Relations Act (employment and labour relations jurisdiction)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Entertainment & Music Industry Employees v Multi Media University of Kenya (Cause 759 of 2018) [2023] KEELRC 1803 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). not stated in the extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/1803/eng@2023-07-27

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