Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions & Hospital Workers v Board of Management Sports Kenya & another [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Hon. Justice Byram Ongaya
Judgment Date
October 16, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
2
Explore the case summary of Kenya Union of Domestic Workers v Board of Management Sports Kenya [2020] eKLR, highlighting key legal principles and implications for labor rights in Kenya.

Case Brief: Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions & Hospital Workers v Board of Management Sports Kenya & another [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions & Hospital Workers v. Board of Management Sports Kenya & Pius Metto
- Case Number: Petition No. 185 of 2019
- Court: Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
- Date Delivered: October 16, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Hon. Justice Byram Ongaya
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues presented before the court include whether the actions of the respondents violated the fundamental rights of the petitioner and its members under Articles 27, 41, and 43 of the Constitution of Kenya, and whether the respondents were justified in revising the salaries of the affected employees downward.

3. Facts of the Case:
The petitioner, a registered trade union, filed a petition against the Board of Management of Sports Kenya and its CEO, Pius Metto, claiming violations of their members' rights to fair labor practices and freedom from discrimination. The dispute arose after the respondents decided to revise the basic salaries of 21 unionizable employees downward, citing advice from the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC). The petitioner argued that the salary changes breached the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) signed in 2015, which stipulated salary increments for the years 2015 to 2017.

4. Procedural History:
The petition was filed on October 9, 2019, and the respondents opposed it by submitting a replying affidavit. The court reviewed the evidence, including the terms of the CBA and the actions taken by the respondents regarding salary adjustments. Key arguments included the legality of the salary deductions and whether proper consultation occurred prior to the changes.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered several legal provisions, including Articles 27, 41, and 43 of the Constitution, the Labour Relations Act, 2007, and the Employment Act, 2007. The CBA was acknowledged as binding under Section 59 of the Labour Relations Act, and the rights to fair remuneration and labor practices were emphasized.
- Case Law: The court referenced prior rulings that established the binding nature of CBAs and the necessity for employers to adhere to agreed terms. Previous cases highlighted the importance of consultation and the legal obligations of employers in altering employment terms.
- Application: The court found that the respondents had violated the CBA by unilaterally reducing salaries without proper consultation or justification. The lack of an established salary structure and failure to exhibit any SRC-approved pay bands further undermined the respondents' position. The court concluded that the actions constituted a breach of the affected employees' rights under the Constitution.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, declaring that the actions of the respondents violated the fundamental rights of the petitioner and its members. The court ordered the respondents to pay withheld salaries, reinstate the salaries to their previous amounts, and permanently restrain any future downward revisions of salaries contrary to the CBA.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the case.

8. Summary:
The court's decision reinforced the importance of adhering to collective bargaining agreements and protecting the rights of employees under the Constitution. The ruling underscored the principle that unilateral salary reductions without proper justification or consultation constitute a violation of workers' rights, promoting accountability and good governance in employment practices. The case serves as a significant precedent in labor relations within Kenya, emphasizing the protection of workers' rights against arbitrary employer actions.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Kenya-Union-of-Domestic-Hotels-Educational-Institutions--Hospital-Workers-v-Board-of-Management-Sports-Kenya--another-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2125_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries