SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Kenya Chemical & Allied Workers Union v Base Titanium Limited [2016] KEELRC 102 (KLR)

[2016] KEELRC 102 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
102
Citation
[2016] KEELRC 102 (KLR)
Decided
25 November 2016
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeLabour Relations DisputePostureClaim for recognition under section 54(1) of the Labour Relations ActCoramO.N. MAKAU
Holding

The court finds that 57 names, including 5 supervisors and 52 former employees, were not valid members recruited by the claimant. The claimant did not represent a simple majority of the respondent's unionisable workforce as of 13.7.2015.

Facts

The Kenya Chemical & Allied Workers Union claimed to have recruited more than a simple majority of the respondent's unionisable employees, while the respondent denied this and argued the claim was premature.

Issues

  1. Whether all 337 members were valid members for recognition under section 54 of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. Whether the claimant has recruited a simple majority of the respondent's unionisable workforce.
  3. Whether the reliefs sought by the suit should issue.

Reasoning

The court considered the validity of the recruited members and the status of the respondent's unionisable employees. It found that the claimant did not prove all 337 members were valid and that the respondent had 242 valid members, which was below the simple majority required.

Outcome

The suit is dismissed.

Orders

  • Each party shall bear her own costs.

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Labour Relations Act
Cases cited (1)
  • Amalgamated Union of Kenya Metal Works vs Ms Jaykay Mechanical Ltd [2014]eKLR
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case