Banking Insurance & Finance Union (Kenya) v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited or KCB Bank Kenya Limited (Cause 540 of 2016) [2025] KEELRC 790 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled KCB should have consulted the banking union before issuing new employment letters, but existing CBA terms still protect employees.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the respondent consulted the union as required under section 10(5) of the Employment Act and the recognition agreement before issuing new letters of appointment to unionisable employees
- 2.Whether the issuance of new letters of employment following the change of name from Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd to KCB Bank (K) Ltd unilaterally altered terms and conditions of employment
- 3.Whether the new letters prevented the union from representing members in disciplinary processes
- 4.What relief, if any, should issue in respect of the impugned new letters
Key legal issues
#Consultation before issuing new letters of employment
The respondent breached the grievance-resolution provisions of the recognition agreement and section 10(5) of the Employment Act by issuing new letters without allowing union officials to attend meetings with the CSC.
The recognition agreement provided for union officials to attend grievance meetings and for unresolved grievances to go to the Joint Negotiating Council. The evidence showed the respondent consulted only the CSC in the absence of union officials. The decision to issue new letters, regardless of contents, was itself a negotiation issue requiring the agreed procedure.
Effect of the new letters on CBA terms
The new letters are to be construed as consistent with the CBA; where a variance is adverse to union members, the CBA prevails.
The respondent's own witness accepted it was neither unlawful nor improper to stipulate CBA terms in employment letters, and the respondent offered that the new letters codified CBA terms. Considering the ten-year lapse, the Court adopted a declaration preserving workplace stability and leaving clause-specific disputes to grievance procedures.
Legal principles established
#- Where new letters of employment are to be issued to unionisable employees, a change in particulars of employment (including the name of the employer) is a negotiation issue or grievance to be handled per the recognition agreement, and consultations are required under section 10(5) of the Employment Act.
- New letters of employment will be construed as consistent with the governing CBA unless a variance is more advantageous to union members; an adverse variance yields to the CBA.
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the impugned new letters of the contract of employment for the unionisable employees be construed as consistent with the terms and conditions of service in the CBA in issue at the material time, unless the variance is more advantageous to the union members, and in event of an adverse or inconsistent variance, the terms and conditions in the CBA at the material time of the dispute to prevail
- 2.Each party to bear own costs of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (section 10(5)) and the parties' recognition agreement and CBA
Relief refused
#Order stopping the respondent from issuing new letters of appointment and revoking those already issued
The Court instead issued a declaratory order construing the new letters as consistent with the CBA and declined to delve into specific clauses, leaving disputes to grievance and negotiating procedures
Costs to the claimant
Each party ordered to bear own costs to foster good industrial relations
Costs
Each party to bear own costs of the suit.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
It appears to the Court that the decision to issue new letters, their contents aside, was by itself a negotiation issue or grievance to be handled per provisions of the recognition agreement but that was not done.
The declaration hereby issued that the impugned new letters of the contract of employment for the unionisable employees herein be construed as consistent with the terms and conditions of service in the CBA in issue at the material time, unless, where the variance is more advantageous to the union members, and further, in event of an adverse or inconsistent variance, the terms and conditions in the CBA at the material time of the dispute herein to prevail.
Each party to bear own costs of the suit.
Issues in the judgment
#The statement of response is dated after the judgment date in internal chronology
Typographical error in the date of the undertaking letter relied on by the claimant
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Banking Insurance & Finance Union (Kenya) v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited or KCB Bank Kenya Limited (Cause 540 of 2016) [2025] KEELRC 790 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as extracted. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/790/eng@2025-03-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.