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 AllowedCause stated as Issue in Dispute: Refusal by the Management of Kenya Railways Corporation to negotiate a Collective Bargaining Agreement (sued on 8 June 2023)· [2025] KEELRC 1444 (KLR)

Railways Workers' Union (Kenya) v Kenya Railways Corporation (Cause E456 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1444 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
8 May 2025
RSRadido Stephen
739 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled that Kenya Railways' years of refusing to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement was an unfair labour practice and ordered talks within 90 days.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Railways Workers' Union sued Kenya Railways Corporation on 8 June 2023, complaining of the Corporation's refusal to negotiate a Collective Bargaining Agreement, and sought declarations of unfair labour practice, an order to commence and conclude negotiations within 30 days, and a direction that the Labour Commissioner chair the negotiations and report to Court. The Respondent, in its response and affidavit, attributed its inability to conclude a CBA to pending court cases, the absence of a Board of Directors, and advice from the Salaries and Remuneration Commission that a human resource policy/salary structure be developed before a 2023 salary increment could be implemented. The Court noted the last CBA expired in 2017; proposals made in May 2017 got no positive response; a trade dispute was reported in March 2020 and a Conciliator appointed; and the SRC only approved the proposals on 15 May 2024 subject to development of a salary structure. The Respondent could not explain why, two years on, no salary structure had been developed or why negotiations had not concluded. The Court declared the Respondent's failure to negotiate and conclude a CBA an unfair labour practice and ordered it to negotiate and conclude a CBA within 90 days. The relief directing the Labour Commissioner to chair negotiations was not granted. Because of the ongoing social partnership between the parties, each party was ordered to bear its own costs. Judgment was delivered virtually in Nairobi on 8 May 2025 by Radido Stephen, J.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Respondent's failure to negotiate and conclude a CBA constitutes an unfair labour practice

Holding

Yes. The last CBA expired in 2017; despite proposals in 2017, a trade dispute in 2020, conciliation, and SRC advice approving proposals in May 2024, the Respondent gave no reasonable justification for not concluding negotiations.

Reasoning

The Court traced the chronology: the 2014 CBA expired in 2017, proposals were tabled the same year with no positive response, a dispute was reported in 2020 and conciliation did not resolve it. The Respondent blamed court cases, lack of a Board, and SRC advice requiring a salary structure, but could not explain a two-year failure to develop that structure. Unexplained delay justified the declaration of unfair labour practice.

p. 2
02

What remedy follows from the unfair labour practice

Holding

A mandatory order compelling the Respondent to negotiate and conclude the CBA within 90 days, rather than the 30 days sought or the Labour Commissioner chairing negotiations.

Reasoning

The Court declined to direct the Labour Commissioner to chair negotiations as sought, but substituted its own compliance timeline of 90 days, giving the Respondent a defined period to discharge its duty to bargain after roughly a year had elapsed since SRC advice.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer's unexplained failure to negotiate and conclude a collective bargaining agreement amounts to an unfair labour practice
  • An employer relying on regulatory advice (such as from the Salaries and Remuneration Commission) as a reason for delaying CBA negotiations must explain the delay in implementing the conditions attached to that advice

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration that the Respondent's failure to negotiate and conclude a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Claimant amounts to an unfair labour practice
  2. 2.The Respondent is ordered to negotiate and conclude a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Claimant within 90 days
  3. 3.Each party to bear own costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over unfair labour practice and collective bargaining dispute (Labour Relations Act dispute reported to the Cabinet Secretary)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Railways Workers' Union (Kenya) v Kenya Railways Corporation (Cause E456 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1444 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause stated as Issue in Dispute: Refusal by the Management of Kenya Railways Corporation to negotiate a Collective Bargaining Agreement (sued on 8 June 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1444/eng@2025-05-08

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