The court dismissed MKU’s claim that the union’s requests were untimely, noting that the proposed meeting dates were communicated with sufficient notice, often two weeks in advance. The judge found no evidence that MKU had proposed alternative dates, interpreting this as a deliberate refusal to engage with the union
By Our Labour Correspondent
In a significant victory for trade union rights in Kenya, the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nairobi has ruled in favour of the Kenya Private Universities Workers’ Union (KPUWU) in its dispute with Mount Kenya University (MKU), an institution linked to businessman Simon Gicharu. The judgment, delivered on 6th February 2025 by Justice C. N. Baari, addresses critical issues of union access, dues deduction, and recognition, setting a precedent for employer–union relations in the private education sector.
The case, Cause No. 117 of 2020, stemmed from KPUWU’s efforts to engage with MKU’s employees for union education and recruitment. The union filed a Memorandum of Claim on 26th February 2020, alleging that MKU had consistently denied its officials access to members, refused to deduct and remit union dues as mandated by law and coerced employees to withdraw from the union. KPUWU sought court orders compelling MKU to comply with the Labour Relations Act, 2007, and to sign a recognition agreement.
MKU, in its defence, argued that it had not been aware of KPUWU’s members among its staff before receiving the union’s requests for meetings. The university claimed that the union’s notices were too short to accommodate and that the check-off forms submitted for union dues were either blank or contained forged signatures. MKU further contended that only eight of the 40 names listed in the forms were its employees, with others belonging to a contracted cleaning company or not appearing in its records.
Justice Baari meticulously reviewed the evidence and submissions from both parties. The court dismissed MKU’s claim that the union’s requests were untimely, noting that the proposed meeting dates were communicated with sufficient notice, often two weeks in advance. The judge found no evidence that MKU had proposed alternative dates, interpreting this as a deliberate refusal to engage with the union.
On the issue of union dues, the court upheld KPUWU’s submission that it had met the legal threshold under Section 48 of the Labour Relations Act, 2007, by submitting 29 signed check-off forms. The judge rejected MKU’s assertion that it needed to verify employees’ membership, stating that such actions constituted coercion and intimidation, given the unequal bargaining power between employer and employee. The court found the forms authentic and uncontroverted, ordering MKU to commence deducting and remitting union dues immediately.
The court also addressed allegations of victimisation. Evidence showed that MKU had written to employees who had signed check-off forms, seeking confirmation of their union membership. Justice Baari ruled that this practice was coercive, as it placed undue pressure on workers. Consequently, the court issued an order restraining MKU from victimising, coercing, or terminating the services of KPUWU members.
Finally, on the issue of recognition, the court confirmed that KPUWU had recruited a simple majority of MKU’s unionisable workforce, as evidenced by the check-off forms and MKU’s own internal memos. This met the legal requirement for a recognition agreement under Section 54 of the Labour Relations Act. The court ordered MKU to sign a recognition agreement with KPUWU, formalising the union’s status as a representative of the university’s employees.
The judgment is a milestone for trade unions in Kenya’s private sector, particularly in higher education institutions. It reaffirms the rights of workers to organise, access union education, and have their dues deducted without employer interference. The ruling also underscores the mandatory nature of the Labour Relations Act, compelling employers to comply with statutory obligations.
For MKU, the decision mandates immediate action to facilitate union access, deduct dues, and formalise a recognition agreement. The court’s decision not to award costs reflects a call for social partnership, encouraging both parties to foster a cooperative relationship moving forward.
This ruling comes at a time when trade unions in Kenya are increasingly advocating for better working conditions in private institutions. The decision serves as a reminder to employers that denying workers their constitutional right to unionise can have legal consequences. It also strengthens the role of the Central Organisation of Trade Unions (COTU-K), which had intervened to support KPUWU’s efforts to engage with MKU.
As Kenya’s labour landscape evolves, this judgment sets a clear standard for employer accountability and respect for workers’ rights. It is a call to action for other institutions to align with labour laws and embrace fair industrial relations practices.
The Employment and Labour Relations Court’s ruling in favour of KPUWU is a triumph for workers’ rights and a testament to the judiciary’s role in upholding labour laws. As KPUWU prepares to engage further with MKU’s employees, the decision paves the way for stronger union representation and better workplace conditions in Kenya’s private universities.
