Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNot stated in judgment· [2024] KEELRC 2381 (KLR)

Kenya Shoe and Leather Workers Union v Megh Singh Cushion Makers Limited (Cause E556 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 2381 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
27 September 2024
1,457 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, a registered trade union, filed a Memorandum of Claim dated 3rd August, 2022 seeking an order compelling the Respondent, formerly Megh Singh Cushion Makers, to sign a recognition agreement to pave the way for CBA negotiations, and to deduct and remit union dues. The Claimant pleaded that it had recruited 19 of the Respondent's 28 employees, or 67.85%, exceeding the simple majority required under section 54(1) of the Labour Relations Act; that repeated efforts to meet management to sign a model recognition agreement failed; and that a conciliator appointed by the Cabinet Secretary under section 65(1) recommended recognition and remission of dues, which the Respondent ignored. The Respondent was served but did not participate, and the claim proceeded by way of the Claimant's written submissions. The court held that it had jurisdiction after internal dispute resolution failed; that the union had attained the simple majority and the Respondent was bound to recognise it; and that upon receipt of check-off forms on 27th July, 2020, the Respondent had a duty to deduct and remit dues, such deduction resting on the check-off forms and the Minister's Gazette Notice rather than on a recognition agreement. Relying on Kudheiha Workers v USIU and Kenya National Union of Nurses v County Public Service Board Homabay, the court ordered the Respondent to recognise the Claimant so long as its membership remained at or above the simple majority, and to forthwith remit deducted union dues to the Claimant's designated account. No costs order appears in the judgment.

Key legal issues

#
01

Entitlement to a recognition agreement

Holding

The Claimant, having recruited 19 of 28 employees (67.85%), attained the simple majority and the Respondent was bound to recognise it

Reasoning

Section 54(1) of the Labour Relations Act obliges an employer to recognise a union representing a simple majority of unionisable employees. The Claimant pleaded and was not contradicted that it had recruited 19 of the Respondent's 28 employees, exceeding 50+1%. The Respondent did not participate to rebut these assertions, and the Conciliator's recommendations supporting recognition were unchallenged.

p. 3
02

Deduction and remittance of union dues

Holding

Upon receipt of check-off forms, the Respondent had a duty to deduct and remit union dues irrespective of the recognition agreement

Reasoning

Sections 48 and 49 of the Labour Relations Act govern deduction of union dues, with the Minister gazetting the deductions, bank and account. The dues here were gazetted in 2012, and the Claimant sent check-off forms on 27th July, 2020. Following the authority in Kenya National Union of Nurses v County Public Service Board Homabay, dues deduction rests on Form S, not on a recognition agreement.

p. 3
03

Jurisdiction of the court

Holding

The court had jurisdiction as the internal dispute resolution mechanism, including conciliation by a conciliator appointed by the Cabinet Secretary, had been exhausted

Reasoning

The union reported the dispute to the Cabinet Secretary, who appointed a conciliator under section 65(1) of the Labour Relations Act. The conciliator convened meetings and issued recommendations which the Respondent ignored. Only then did the Claimant approach the Court, satisfying the dispute-resolution prerequisites to judicial determination.

p. 3
04

Effect of the Respondent's non-participation

Holding

The Claimant's uncontroverted assertions on attaining the simple majority were taken as true

Reasoning

The Respondent was served but never entered appearance or filed a response. The Conciliator had noted the Respondent failed to produce documents to counter the Claimant's assertions. In the absence of any rebuttal in these proceedings, the court accepted the Claimant's evidence on recruitment levels and membership.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer shall recognise a trade union for collective bargaining if it represents a simple majority of unionisable employees
  • Deduction and remittance of union dues is not dependent on a recognition agreement but on the check-off forms (Form S) and the Minister's Gazette Notice

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Respondent to recognize the Claimant's union so long as its members are as they were at filing of the suit or have not dropped below the simple majority
  2. 2.The Respondent to forthwith remit deducted union dues to the claimant's designated account as per the check-off forms
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction following failure of internal dispute resolution and conciliation under the Labour Relations Act (sections 54, 65)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Shoe and Leather Workers Union v Megh Singh Cushion Makers Limited (Cause E556 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 2381 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2381/eng@2024-09-27

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