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 AllowedMemorandum of Claim dated 17th April 2013 (filed 19th April 2013)· [2025] KEELRC 110 (KLR)

Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers v Kenya Meat Commission (Cause 549 of 2013) [2025] KEELRC 110 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
23 January 2025
MOM. Onyango
4,012 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~16 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court awarded Kenya Meat Commission workers minimum wage alignment plus 10% increases and improved allowances, but declined the union's full demands.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This first-instance judgment of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Eldoret (M. Onyango, J) resolved a long-running trade dispute between the Claimant union and the Kenya Meat Commission over the CBA for the period 1st July 2012 to 30th June 2014. The dispute, reported under section 62 of the Labour Relations Act and referred to court by a conciliator's certificate under section 69, had earlier been struck out for want of jurisdiction in 2018, but that judgment was set aside in 2019 with directions that the parties seek SRC input. The SRC reported that the Respondent, a State Corporation, could not afford any remuneration review. The court framed two issues: whether CBA review was subject to SRC advice, and whether the Claimant was entitled to the remedies sought. It held that the court has jurisdiction to determine deadlocked wage disputes within legislative guidelines, that unions may make demands and employers must negotiate but need not accept all demands, and that the court must consider SRC guidelines for government entities - though the SRC and CPMU materials were unhelpful as they post-dated the CBA period. Finding the disputed CBA overtaken by the 139% cumulative rise in statutory minimum wages, the court awarded updated minimum rates plus 10%, doubled house allowances, increased the night shift allowance, and set medical benefit caps. New clauses were deferred to the next negotiations, the parties were directed to negotiate a CBA commencing 1st July 2025, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs. The claim succeeded only partially, as the court declined to grant the union's specific proposals verbatim.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the review of the CBA is subject to advice of the SRC

Holding

The court is obligated to consider SRC guidelines when dealing with a government entity, but the SRC report was unhelpful because it addressed circumstances long after the CBA period

Reasoning

The court read section 15 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, section 48 of the Labour Institutions Act and section 26 of the Employment Act together, concluding it has jurisdiction over wage disputes subject to legislative guidelines. While SRC advice must be considered for government entities, the SRC report in this case was based on circumstances (losses, audit disclaimers) long after the 2012-2014 CBA period and could not assist in determining the historic dispute.

p. 7
02

Extent of court's involvement in CBA negotiations

Holding

The court has jurisdiction to determine wage disputes; the Respondent's position that the court cannot be involved and need not pay above statutory minimums was rejected

Reasoning

The court held that where negotiations deadlocked, the court is empowered to determine the dispute within legislative guidelines. Trade unions are entitled to make demands and employers are obliged to negotiate and give counter-offers, but are not bound to accept every demand. The Respondent's reliance on the Henkel Chemicals case did not preclude the court from determining a deadlocked economic dispute referred under the Labour Relations Act.

p. 6
03

Whether the Claimant is entitled to the remedies sought

Holding

Partially - the court awarded revised rates of pay and allowances based on the cumulative 139% rise in statutory minimum wages since 2010, and gave directions for negotiation of a current CBA

Reasoning

The court found the disputed CBA (2012-2014) had been overtaken by events, as statutory minimum wages had risen 139% over the period. Rather than grant the union's original proposals, the court brought employees earning below the statutory minimum for cities up to that minimum and awarded a 10% increase, doubled house allowances, increased the night shift allowance and set medical benefit caps, directing the parties to negotiate a fresh CBA from 1st July 2025.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • The court has jurisdiction to determine wage and terms of service disputes within legislative guidelines, and parties to a CBA must negotiate, but an employer is not bound to accept all union demands
  • The court is bound by Wages Guidelines and obliged to consider SRC guidelines when dealing with a government entity
  • A CBA should always contain the jobs in each grade as a guide to any person reading the same

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Award on wages: each unionisable employee in grades 10, 9, 8 and 7 earning below the statutory minimum wage for cities be brought to the current minimum wage for cities and awarded a 10% wage increase; those earning above the statutory minimum wage awarded a 10% increase on current earnings
  2. 2.Award on other clauses: retention/variation of CBA clauses including effective date and duration of 1st July 2024 to 30th June 2025; night shift allowance increased from Kshs. 80 to Kshs. 200; house allowance doubled per grade; medical benefit of In-Patient Kshs. 100,000 and Out-Patient Kshs. 50,000; minimum basic rates of pay at 2024 statutory minimum rates increased by 10%; wages increase of further 10% to cover all years up to 30th June 2024
  3. 3.New clauses (computer allowance, canteen, special allowance for drivers and employees working in freezers) to be considered at the next negotiations
  4. 4.The parties are directed to immediately embark on the negotiation of the next CBA to commence on 1st July 2025
  5. 5.Each party shall bear its own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Labour Relations Actsections 62, 69
  • Labour Institutions Actsection 48
  • Employment Actsection 26
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court Actsection 15(5), (6)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 41(5); Article 260
  • State Corporation Actsection 3
  • Exchequer and Audit Actsection 2

Cases cited (4)

  • Kenya Chemical & Allied Workers Union v Henkel Chemicals (E.A.) Limited
    (2015) eKLR
  • Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital Board v Kenya National Union of Nurses
    (2016) eKLR
  • Teachers Service Commission vs Kenya Union of Teachers & 3 Others
    (2015) eKLR
  • Kenya Union of Domestic Hotels Education and Allied Workers v Salaries and Remuneration Commission
    (2014) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 62, 69 Labour Relations Act (dispute referred following conciliation); Employment and Labour Relations Court Act section 15; Labour Institutions Act section 48; Employment Act section 26

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers v Kenya Meat Commission (Cause 549 of 2013) [2025] KEELRC 110 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of Claim dated 17th April 2013 (filed 19th April 2013). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/110/eng@2025-01-23

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