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

Kenya Engineering Workers’ Union v Reliance Industries Ltd (Cause 62 of 2001) [2000] KEIC 1 (KLR) (Employment and Labour) (9 July 2000) (Award)

[2000] KEIC 1 (KLR) Industrial Court
Read PDF
Court
Industrial Court
Case number
1
Citation
[2000] KEIC 1 (KLR)
Decided
9 July 2000
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeLabour DisputePostureAppeal from a previous awardCoramCP CHEMUTTUT, JM KILONZO, AK KERICH
Holding

The Court awarded the Union the requested increases and allowances, but rejected the demand for retrospective effect of the collective agreement.

Facts

The Kenya Engineering Workers' Union and Reliance Industries Ltd had a dispute over various wage and employment terms, including basic monthly minimums, general wage increase, house allowance, leave travelling allowance, redundancy, death of an employee, casual workers, job classification, shop stewards rights, suspension, safari allowance, and long service award.

Issues

  1. Basic Monthly Minimums
  2. General Wage Increase
  3. House Allowance
  4. Leave Travelling Allowance
  5. Redundancy
  6. Death of an Employee
  7. Casual Workers
  8. Job Classification
  9. Shopstewards Rights
  10. Suspension
  11. Safari Allowance
  12. Long Service Award
  13. Effective Date and Duration

Reasoning

The Court considered the economic conditions and the Company's ability to pay, and awarded the requested increases and allowances with an effective date of 1st March, 2003.

Outcome

The Court upheld the Union's claims and rejected the Company's inability to pay argument.

Orders

  • Awarded the Union the requested increases and allowances
  • Awarded the Union the requested effective date of 1st March, 2003
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 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case