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

University Academic Staff Union (UASU) v Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology; Ministry of Labour and Social Protection & another (Interested Parties) (Miscellaneous Case E084 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 2791 (KLR) (7 November 2023) (Ruling)

[2023] KEELRC 2791 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
2791
Citation
[2023] KEELRC 2791 (KLR)
Decided
7 November 2023
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCollective Bargaining Agreement RegistrationPostureAppeal from original trialCoramGithinji, JK Gakeri, Mwilu, O. Odek, Radido
Holding

A Collective Bargaining Agreement became a binding contract only after registration by the Employment and Labour Relations Court, and the failure to involve the Salaries and Remuneration Commission rendered the CBA invalid.

Facts

The University Academic Staff Union (UASU) sought the registration of a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology (JKUAT). The Ministry of Labour and Social Protection objected to the registration due to the exclusion of the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) from the negotiation process.

Issues

  1. Whether a Collective Bargaining Agreement became a binding contract upon attestation by the parties or upon registration by the Employment and Labour Relations Court.
  2. What conditions did a collective bargaining agreement have to fulfill for it to become registrable.
  3. What was the role of the Salaries and Remuneration Commission in the formulation and registration of Collective Bargaining Agreements.

Reasoning

A Collective Bargaining Agreement is an agreement analogous to any other, but it is heavily regulated by law and becomes a binding contract only after registration by the Employment and Labour Relations Court. The CBA must be submitted for registration within 14 days of its conclusion.

Outcome

The application was dismissed, with each party bearing their own costs.

Orders

  • Application dismissed

Authorities cited

Legislation (4)
  • Labour Relations Act, 2007
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016
  • Labour Institutions Act, 2007
  • Salaries and Remuneration Commission Act, 2010
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 0.3 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case