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 judgment· [2024] KEELRC 613 (KLR)

Kenya Shoe and Leather Workers Union v Technoplast Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E547 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 613 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
14 March 2024
BMB. O. M. Manani
1,692 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

#

A Kenyan employment court ruled employers only remit union dues actually deducted from workers' salaries, and cannot claw back disputed payments without a court order.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, a trade union with a recognition agreement and CBA with the Respondent employer, sought orders compelling the Respondent to remit outstanding trade union dues and agency fees under sections 48 and 49 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that from April 2023 the Respondent irregularly withheld Kshs 30,000.00 per month from monthly collections. The Respondent opposed, contending that since October 2019 it had erroneously paid the Kshs 30,000.00 monthly on behalf of casual employees from whose salaries the amounts could not be recovered, accumulating to Kshs 1,680,000.00, and it sought to stop the payments and recover the sums by offset. The court held that while employers must deduct and remit union dues, the law does not require dues to be sourced from the employer's own resources; dues must be deducted from employees' income, and casual employees may pay directly under section 52. The court found the Respondent's concerns valid but held it could not unilaterally recover the alleged erroneous payments without a court order, and whether the alleged agreement to pay the flat monthly sum is enforceable must await full trial. Interim orders were issued allowing the Respondent to stop the Kshs 30,000.00 payments, requiring continued remittance of dues and agency fees for regular employees, forbidding unilateral recovery of the Kshs 1,680,000.00, and directing the Claimant to arrange direct dues payment for casual members. Costs of the applications abide the outcome of the suit. Judgment delivered online by Manani J on 14th March 2024.

Key legal issues

#
01

Source of trade union dues

Holding

Employer must remit dues deducted from employees' salaries, not from its own resources

Reasoning

The obligation to deduct at source exists because the employer settles salaries; but the law does not require the employer to fund dues from its own resources. Casual employees not on regular salary may pay directly under section 52, or parties may agree another arrangement, the enforceability of which awaits full trial.

p. 3
02

Unilateral recovery of alleged erroneous payments

Holding

The Respondent cannot self-help by offsetting the Kshs 1,680,000.00 against dues without a court order

Reasoning

Whether the payments were erroneous or made pursuant to an agreement is disputed and enforceability of the alleged agreement must be confirmed at trial. Pending that, the Respondent cannot unilaterally recover sums allegedly paid in error; such recovery requires a court order.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer is only obliged to remit trade union dues actually deducted from employees' salaries, not dues sourced from its own resources
  • An employer may not unilaterally recover alleged erroneous payments from remittances without a court order

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Respondent is allowed not to remit the monthly sum of Kshs 30,000.00 on account of casual employees until the action is heard and determined
  2. 2.The Respondent to continue remitting trade union dues and agency fees from employees in regular employment who are members or CBA beneficiaries
  3. 3.The Respondent is forbidden from deducting from those remittances in purported recovery of the alleged erroneous payments totaling Kshs 1,680,000.00 until determination of the suit
  4. 4.The Claimant to arrange with its casual-employee members for direct payment of trade union dues under section 52 of the Labour Relations Act
  5. 5.Costs of the two applications to abide the outcome of the suit
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over trade union dues and CBA disputes under the Labour Relations Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Shoe and Leather Workers Union v Technoplast Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E547 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 613 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/613/eng@2024-03-14

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