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

National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF) v Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers (KUCFAW) [2020] KEELRC 1456 (KLR)

[2020] KEELRC 1456 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1456
Citation
[2020] KEELRC 1456 (KLR)
Decided
6 March 2020
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeLabour DisputePostureAppeal from the original trialCoramLady Justice Maureen Onyango
The Court upholds the recommendations of the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) regarding the increment for unionisable staff and the average annual increment for the period from 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2021.

Facts

The Respondent issued a strike notice demanding the Claimant hire a private consultant for job evaluation. The Claimant engaged the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) to conduct the evaluation at no cost. The SRC recommended a 6% increment for unionisable staff and an average 5% annual increment for the period from 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2021.

Issues

  • Terms and conditions of service under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)

Reasoning

The Court considers the report from the CPMU and the parties' submissions. It upholds the SRC's recommendations as they align with the national wage guidelines and the Commission's statutory authority.

Outcome

Affirmed

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
  • Salaries and Remuneration Commission Act
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case