Appellate judges fault Labour Relations Court for issuing orders in favour of the workers

In a battle that has been in courts from October 14, 2010, the union argued that employers failed to take advantage of the notice period to initiate dialogue with the union and had resorted to intimidating union employees for participating in the strike.

Thousands of tea workers who have boycotted work to protest the introduction of mechanised tea picking now risk being sacked after Court of Appeal lifted orders protecting them.

The appellate court judges faulted Employment and Labour Relations Court for issuing orders in favour of the workers while there was another suit filed by Unilever Tea Limited on the same issue, and which had not been concluded before the High Court.

PROHIBITED STRIKE

“Had the learned judge taken into consideration that there was in force an order of the High Court that prohibited the strike despite which the union and its employees appear to have gone ahead with the strike, the judge would no doubt have declined to grant the orders that he did,” the Court of Appeal said in its ruling.

The two lower courts had issued conflicting orders, with the High Court blocking tea workers union officials from calling the strike. On the other hand, the union officials obtained orders from the labour court, blocking Unilever from sacking employees who had downed their tools.

In a battle that has been in courts from October 14, 2010, the union argued that employers failed to take advantage of the notice period to initiate dialogue with the union and had resorted to intimidating union employees for participating in the strike.

The case by the union, also against Eastern Produce Kenya Limited, was filed five days before the date set by the High Court to hear the other application.

But the stalemate did not end there, as Unilever went back to High Court seeking an order to commit tea workers’ union officials for contempt and at the same time filed an application before the Employment and Labour Relations Court to strike out the case filed by the union.

The two warring parties decided to go for reconciliation, but did not agree on a return-to-work formula.

Again, Unilever moved to the labour court seeking that the orders that had been issued be set aside, but the court extended its orders instead.

The two warring sides, in a move to quash each other’s orders, blamed the lower courts for the stalemate before Appeal court judges Phillip Waki, Roslyn Nambuye and Gatembu Kairu.

SEVEN-DAY NOTICE

Unilever told the three judges the labour court ought to have ordered that the case before it be consolidated with that of the High Court instead of issuing the orders.

The union, on the other hand, argued that the High Court ignored the fact that there was a seven-day strike notice when it issued its orders.

But the judges agreed with the employer that the orders of the labour court ought to be set aside.

“The orders of Industrial Court are hereby set aside and substituted with an order dismissing the union’s application date with costs to the appellant,” the said.

 

Business
Government pledges support for Nairobi traders amid market challenges
Business
Premium Ruto's food security hopes facing storm amid fake fertiliser scam
Real Estate
Premium Affordable housing: Will State's data-backed action now pay off?
Business
Premium Nairobi business community plans protest as over 700 containers held at port