Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No 1264 of 2018· [2024] KEELRC 1395 (KLR)

Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Multi Tools Limited (Cause 1264 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 1395 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
11 June 2024
1,785 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 court dismissed a union's recognition suit because the union's registered sector didn't cover the employer's wholesale hardware business.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Kenya Engineering Workers Union sued the Respondent, a licensed wholesale trader in hardware and machinery, for refusing to sign a recognition agreement, declining to deduct and remit union dues under section 48 of the Labour Relations Act, 2007, and victimizing union members. The Union reported a trade dispute in 2016; a Conciliator issued a Certificate of Disagreement after the Respondent declined to attend meetings. The Union claimed 59% membership among 22 employees and sought orders for dues deduction, execution of a recognition agreement to enable CBA negotiations, compensation, an injunction against victimization, and costs. The Respondent denied the Court's jurisdiction, the Union's locus standi, and that any dispute or victimization existed, contending that its business and employees fall outside the Union's constitutional scope under Rule 3(a). The matter proceeded by way of written submissions. The court accepted the Respondent's core submission: a trade union may recruit only within the sector defined by its registered constitution, and eligibility for membership must precede the majority test for recognition. The Respondent's wholesale hardware and machinery business falls outside the Union's mechanical engineering and metal allied manufacturing scope, so its employees are not unionisable employees of the Claimant, and no trade dispute could exist between them. The suit was dismissed as an abuse of court process, with costs to the Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Claimant Union is the relevant/sector union for the Respondent's employees

Holding

The Union's constitution confines membership to General Mechanical Engineering and Metal Allied Manufacturing Industries, whereas the Respondent trades in wholesale hardware and machinery; the Union is not the appropriate sector union

Reasoning

The court compared the Union's constitutional scope (Rule 3(a)) with the Respondent's licensed business activity. Since the Respondent's business falls outside the Union's registered sector, its employees are not eligible for membership, and the Union cannot claim recognition or recruit them. The suit was therefore a non-starter and an abuse of process.

p. 4
02

Whether the Claimant had locus standi to institute the suit

Holding

Having failed the eligibility test, the Union lacked locus standi to sue on behalf of the Respondent's employees

Reasoning

The Respondent argued that the right to join a union under Article 41 and section 4(1) of the Labour Relations Act is exercisable only within the union's constitutional scope. The court accepted that the employees were not unionisable employees of the Claimant, so the Union could not raise a trade dispute or sue on their behalf.

p. 3
03

Whether section 62 of the Labour Relations Act had to be invoked before suit

Holding

Not decided on the merits as the suit was dismissed on eligibility grounds; the Claimant argued section 62 is permissive ('may')

Reasoning

The Claimant submitted that section 62 is not mandatory given the use of 'may', relying on Kenyan authorities, and that a Certificate of Unresolved Dispute had issued. The Respondent maintained it was a stranger to the dispute. The court's dismissal rested on sector-union ineligibility rather than on exhaustion.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A trade union is restricted to recruiting members only from the sector in which its constitution limits it; eligibility under the union's constitution must precede the majority test for recognition

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The suit is dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Labour Relations Act, 2007section 48
  • Labour Relations Act, 2007section 2 (definition of unionisable employee)
  • Labour Relations Act, 2007section 54(8)
  • Labour Relations Act, 2007section 62
  • Labour Relations Act, 2007section 4(1)
  • ELRC Act, 2016section 12
  • Evidence Actsection 107
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 36
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 41

Cases cited (4)

  • Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Jokali Handling Services and another
    Kisumu ELRC Cause No. 18 of 2017
  • Karen Blixen Camp Limited v Kenya Hotels and Allied Workers Union
    Civil Appeal No. 100 of 2013
  • Kenya Engineers Workers Union v Crom Impex (K) Limited
    [2024] eKLR
  • Kenya Engineers Workers Union v Africa Metal Works Limited
    (ELRC Cause 61 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 859 (KLR) (16 April 2024)
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 12 of the ELRC Act, 2016 (disputed by the Respondent)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Multi Tools Limited (Cause 1264 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 1395 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Cause No 1264 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1395/eng@2024-06-11

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