Unions warn of strike over delayed county salaries, hit out at SRC

Union of Kenya Civil Servants Secretary General Lawrence Nyaguti addresses a media briefing on the proposed salary structure by the Salaries and Remuneration Commission in Nairobi on August 27, 2026. [ Benard Orwongo, Standard]

Public sector unions have threatened to call a strike over persistent delays in salaries of county government workers, accusing devolved units of turning the issue into a systemic problem.

The unions, representing workers across the public sector, say county governments have repeatedly failed to pay salaries on time and remit statutory deductions, leaving thousands of employees struggling to meet their financial obligations.

They have now given Parliament three months to enact legislation that would establish clear and enforceable standards on the timely payment of public servants’ salaries.

Union of Kenya Civil Servants Secretary General Lawrence Nyaguti said workers could no longer continue bearing the consequences of failures by their employers.

“The perennial problem of delayed salaries has to come to an end. We cannot continue watching our members suffer because county governments are unable to meet their obligations as employers,” Nyaguti said.

He said the delays were partly linked to the absence of a clear legal framework compelling public employers to pay workers within a specified period.

The Kenya County Government Workers Union Secretary-General Roba Duba said the situation had persisted despite the country operating under a devolved system of government for 16 years.

“County workers are employees of government and they deserve to be paid on time. Salary is not a favour. It is an obligation of the employer,” Duba said.

The Kenya Public Health Workers Union Secretary-General Brown Achira warned that continued delays could have wider implications for the delivery of essential services.

“When workers are not paid, they have families to take care of, loans to service and basic needs to meet. You cannot expect workers to remain comfortable when their salaries are delayed month after month,” Achira said.

The unions say they will give Parliament three months to act once the proposed legislation is formally presented, warning that failure to address the problem could trigger industrial action.

The threat comes amid renewed criticism of the framework governing the determination of salaries and remuneration in the public sector.

The unions have also stepped up their opposition to the role of the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC), arguing that its powers have increasingly interfered with the constitutional right to collective bargaining.

They argue that Article 41(5) of the Constitution guarantees workers the right to collective bargaining and that the outcome of negotiations between a union and an employer should be respected as a binding agreement.

A union official who participated in the constitutional process said the provision was deliberately included to protect the ability of workers and their representatives to negotiate employment terms.

“Article 41(5) says every trade union, employers’ organisation and employer has the right to engage in collective bargaining. The product of that collective bargaining is an agreement between the workers and the employer,” the official said.

He argued that there was no blanket constitutional provision allowing another institution to dictate the issues that workers and employers could negotiate.

“The fact that we tolerated SRC dictating the scope of our negotiations was the beginning of tolerating the fact that SRC will do what they are supposed to do — set salaries for public service workers,” he said.

The unions want the courts to clarify the extent of SRC’s powers and determine whether provisions in its regulations are consistent with the Constitution.

They are now seeking an interpretation of provisions they say affect the ability of unions to challenge or seek a review of decisions made by the commission.

The unions argue that where an SRC decision affects both an employer and a union, both parties should have a clear avenue to seek a further determination if they are dissatisfied with the outcome.

They questioned why public employers should be able to return to the commission for further awards while unions representing the affected workers have limited avenues to challenge such decisions.

“If the decision is going to affect the employer and the union, why should the union not have the same right?” the official asked.

The unions also want the court to define what constitutes a “CBA decision” and determine at what point a union’s role ends in the process leading to an SRC determination.

They maintain that collective bargaining should begin with unions and employers submitting proposals, followed by a joint technical review and substantive negotiations.

“Proposal window is here, submit proposals. Then there is a joint technical review. We are proposing as unions and reviewing the proposals together. That is the beginning of negotiation,” the official said.

He said the parties should then proceed to substantive negotiations before arriving at a collective bargaining agreement.

“That is what the CBA is. The employer and union begin negotiations. They negotiate and eventually arrive at an agreement,” he said.

The unions’ position places them at odds with what they describe as an expanded interpretation of the SRC’s mandate under Article 230 of the Constitution and legislation enacted to operationalise the commission.

They want the legal framework reviewed to ensure that SRC’s role does not override the constitutional right of workers to negotiate collectively with their employers.

The unions are also preparing to collect signatures for a petition seeking changes to the legal framework governing the commission’s role in determining public-sector salaries.

For now, however, the immediate threat remains industrial action over delayed pay.

The unions say they will not continue waiting indefinitely for county governments to pay workers who have already provided the services for which they are employed.

They argue that 16 years of devolution should have been enough time to establish a reliable system for paying county workers and ensuring statutory deductions are remitted on time.

Failure to resolve the issue, they warn, could leave the unions with little choice but to mobilise workers for a strike.