Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherMemorandum of Claim dated 26th January 2021 (reference to Cause Nos. 45 of 2019, 761 of 2019 and 791 of 2019)· [2024] KEELRC 811 (KLR)

Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Kenya Glass Workers Union & another (Cause E064 of 2021 & 45 & 761 of 2019 (Consolidated)) [2024] KEELRC 811 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
12 April 2024
MOMAUREEN ONYANGO
1,929 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment and Labour Relations Court closed this union-versus-union dispute because the workers' grievances had already been resolved.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, a trade union for the engineering sector, sued the 1st Respondent union and the 2nd Respondent employer seeking a declaration that a CBA negotiated and imposed on its members was null and void, revocation of the recognition agreement between the two Respondents, and an injunction restraining the 1st Respondent from acting on behalf of the Claimant's members. The Claimant alleged that 390 employees of the 2nd Respondent's General Aluminium department had resigned from the 1st Respondent and rejoined it in 2019, and that the Respondents colluded to declare the members redundant and sign an inferior CBA. The 1st Respondent defended its recognition agreement of 14th August 2012 and its CBA of 4th November 2020, relied on the judgment in Cause No. 761 of 2019, and contended that the Claimant's constitution did not permit it to represent glass sector employees and that termination of a recognition agreement must follow section 54(5) of the Labour Relations Act. The 2nd Respondent did not participate. The court perused Cause No. 45 of 2019 (withdrawn by consent after the CBA was registered) and Cause No. 761 of 2019, in which the court had dismissed a similar claim and directed deduction and remittance of dues per check-off forms. Noting the Claimant's submissions that the CBA had been registered and that it had recruited all the 2nd Respondent's employees, the court found no live issue for determination, marked the suit as resolved, made no orders, and directed each party to bear its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether any issue remained for determination

Holding

No issue remained for determination as the disputes had been resolved and the prior judgment in Cause No. 761 of 2019 adequately addressed the same issues

Reasoning

The court had perused files 45 of 2019 and 761 of 2019. Cause 45 of 2019 was withdrawn by consent after the CBA was registered, and the judgment in Cause 761 of 2019, involving all three parties, directed deduction and remittance of union dues per check-off forms. The Claimant's submissions showed the CBA had been registered and it had recruited all the employees, and its submissions departed from its pleaded prayers. The court therefore found no live issue.

p. 5
02

Competing recognition agreements and freedom of association

Holding

Employees may freely resign from one union and join another under section 4(1) of the Labour Relations Act; dual recognition agreements breed industrial strife

Reasoning

The court restated its earlier observation that both unions held recognition agreements with the 2nd Respondent and employees had periodically moved between them, causing strife. It held employees were within their rights to resign and join another union, and each union had to compete to retain members rather than seek to oust the other.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • It is unwise for an employer to enter into two separate recognition agreements with different unions as this is a recipe for industrial strife
  • Employees are entitled under section 4(1) of the Labour Relations Act to resign from one union and join another, and competing recognized unions must retain members through competition
  • Where issues in a suit have been resolved, the court will make no orders and mark the suit as resolved

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The issues in dispute having been resolved, no orders are necessary
  2. 2.The suit is marked as resolved
  3. 3.Each party shall bear its costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Labour Relations Actsection 4(1)
  • Labour Relations Actsection 14(1)(e)
  • Labour Relations Actsection 54(5)
  • Labour Relations Actsection 42
Jurisdiction invoked
Labour Relations Act and the Employment and Labour Relations Court's jurisdiction over trade union recognition and CBA disputes (not expressly cited in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Kenya Glass Workers Union & another (Cause E064 of 2021 & 45 & 761 of 2019 (Consolidated)) [2024] KEELRC 811 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Memorandum of Claim dated 26th January 2021 (reference to Cause Nos. 45 of 2019, 761 of 2019 and 791 of 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/811/eng@2024-04-12

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