Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions, Hospitals & Allied Workers v Kilimanjaro Safari Club (Cause 58 of 2000) [2001] KEIC 16 (KLR) (9 March 2001) (Award)
KENYA UNION OF DOMESTIC, HOTELS, EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, HOSPITALS & ALLIED WORKERS v KILIMANJARO SAFARI CLUB [2001] eKLR
Neutral citation:
[2001] KEIC 16 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
Cause 58 of 2000
CP Chemuttut, J, HBN Gicheru & AK Kerich, Members
March 9, 2001
Between
Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions, Hospitals & Allied Workers
Claimant
and
Kilimanjaro Safari Club
Respondent
Award
1.On 23rd May 2000, the Minister for Labour referred this dispute to the Court for adjudication and determination in exercise of the powers vested in him by Section 8 of the Trade Disputes Act, Cap.234, Laws of Kenya (which is hereinafter referred to as the Act). The reference, together with the statutory certificates from the Minister himself and the Labour Commissioner under Section 14, subsection (9)(e) and (f) of the Act, were received by the Court on 24th May 2000, and the dispute was listed for mention on 14th June 2000. On this occasion, Mr. Mwari appeared for the Union and Mr. R.M. Muthanga, Executive Officer, F.K.E., appeared for the Club. The Personnel Manager of the Club, Mr. Philip Koech, was also present or in attendance. The dispute was fixed for hearing on 7th September 2000, and meanwhile, the Union were directed to submit their memorandum on or before 14th July 2000, and the Club were ordered to file their reply statement on or before 31st August 2000. The Union submitted their memorandum on 18th July, 2000, but the Club did not file any reply statement thereto as ordered hereinabove. On 1st September 2000, Mrs. M. Onyango, Executive Officer, F.K.E., for the Club requested for a another mention on 7th September 2000, instead of a hearing, on the ground that she had not received a copy of the memorandum submitted by the Union. The dispute was, however, listed for a further mention on 11th October 2000, when Messrs. Mwari and Muthanga appeared for the parties respectively. On this date, the case was rescheduled by mutual agreement for hearing on 30th January 2001, and meanwhile the Club were allowed to file their reply statement on or before 10th November 2000. They did not submit the same and no reasons were given for their default. On 30th January, 2001, Mrs. Onyango for the Club applied to withdraw from the case for lack of instructions. The application was granted, and the matter was heard ex-parte.
2.The parties have a recognition agreement and have also entered into several collective agreements which regulate the terms and conditions of service of the unionisable employees. On careful perusal of the submission by the Union, I note that this dispute was processed through all the normal stages of the pre-Industrial Court machinery; and it was mutually agreed by the parties that the employees’ terminal benefits stood at Kshs.11,242,524/=. Consequently, it was conceded by Mr. Mwari for the Union, the Club made part payment thereof, amounting to Kshs. 6,000,000/=, leaving a balance of Kshs.5,242,524/=. He, therefore, prayed that the grievants be paid the aforementioned outstanding balance of Kshs.5,242,524/= forthwith.
3.As the Club neglected and/or refused to file their reply statement to the memorandum of the Union and were also absent during the hearing, despite having been notified to attend and file the same, I have, therefore, no reason to disbelieve the case of the Union. In the circumstances, I allow the demand as prayed for hereinabove by the Union and order the Club to pay the said outstanding balance of Kshs.5,242,524/= within thirty(30) days from the date of this award.
4.The members did not offer their opinion or advice on this matter.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2001.CHARLES P. CHEMMUTTUT,JUDGE.