Labour dispute resolution in Kenya: compliance with international standards and a comparison with South Africa

The thesis examines the effectiveness of the Kenyan labour dispute resolution system by undertaking a comparative analysis of South African and international labour standards. A comparative approach is adopted, which relies on primary and secondary sources of data, thereby undertaking an in-depth content analysis. The study provides a comprehensive discussion of the current legislative provisions and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) framework as recognised in both countries' national labour legislation as well as in a number of international labour standards instruments. In particular, the study illuminates and discusses the bottlenecks in the current Kenyan system and argues that it does not adequately respond to the needs of parties in terms of the international labour conventions. The study argues further that labour disputes should be resolved as quickly and informally as possible and at the lowest level possible. Similarly, disputes should ideally be resolved with little or no procedural technicalities, and without allowing them to drag on indefinitely. However, this study observes that there have been notable concerns in the current dual system of labour dispute resolution in Kenya. The problems include protracted referral timeframe for dismissal disputes, non-regulation of maximum timeframe for the agreed extension after 30 days conciliation period has lapsed, the absence of a statutory timeframe for appointing a conciliator/commissioner and arbitration process under both the Labour Relations Act, 2007 and the Employment Act, 2007. The study argues for Kenya to incorporate provisions in its labour laws of a proactive and expeditious dispute resolution thereby helping to resolve labour disputes in the most effective and efficient manner without necessarily having to resort to the courts. Likewise, the responsibility of resolving statutory labour disputes in Kenya is still heavily under the control of the government of Kenya through the Ministry of Labour. There is still no independent statutory dispute resolution institution (Conciliation, Mediation Commission) as envisaged by the Labour Relations Act, 2007. As a result, the Kenyan dispute resolution system has been criticised for lack of impartiality leading to the increases in strikes and lockouts. Similarly, it has made the attainment of effective and efficient labour dispute resolution difficult. In view of that, a comparative approach with South Africa is adopted with a view to informing Kenya how the establishment of independent institutions similar to the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration, Bargaining Councils and specialised labour courts can lead to effective dispute resolution in Kenya. Given above, the study provides a wide range of remedial intervention intended to address the gaps and flaws highlighted in the study. Systematically, the study provides important suggestions and possible solutions for a better institutional framework and processes to address them. However, the study acknowledges that making effective and efficient labour dispute resolution a reality calls for renewed commitment from government and social partners and investment in appropriate human and financial resources. This requires a strong political will as well as concerted efforts from all role players in the labour relations community in the two respective countries

The substantive and procedural limitations on the constitutional right to strike

This treatise discusses the increasing of the procedural and substantive limitations on the employees’ right to strike. The Constitution permits the right to strike to be limited in terms of the laws of general application. The Labour Relations Act (LRA) is a good example. Such limitation must be reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society, based on human dignity, equality and freedom. The study sought to investigate whether further increasing the existing limitations on the right to strike unduly breaches employees’ Constitutional right to strike and the purpose of the LRA. Further, the study sought to find out whether the additional content requirements in the strike notice amount to importing into the LRA additional limitations on the fundamental right to strike that enjoys no textual support. Through an extensive literature review, the findings arguably show that indeed further increasing the limitations on the employees’ right to strike may unduly infringe their right to strike. Moreover, the increase of the content requirements in a strike notice creates an unnecessary hurdle to employees wishing to strike. One of the most important finding made is that instead further increasing the limitations on the right to strike, going back to the basics of negotiation to alleviate strikes, particularly wage-related strikes is vital. To achieve this, it is important for employers to re-establish social and individual relationships with their employees, whereby they become aware of the issues that employees face on a daily basis. Also, establishing proper workplace dialogue and forums would assist employers in becoming aware of employees concerns. This would thereby prevent strikes, as problems can be dealt with beforehand. The findings above informed in the recommendations at the end of the study

Strikes in Essential Services in Kenya: The Doctors, Nurses and Clinical Officers' Strikes Revisited and Lessons from South Africa

The right to strike is one of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Kenyan Constitution, 2010. Any limitation to the right involves the danger of collective bargaining. The right to strike is derived from the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 that Kenya ratified on 18 July 1951. Article 2(4) of the Constitution emphasises that any law inconsistent with it is void. The Labour Relations Act, 2007 gives effect to the constitutional right to strike but is also subject to a number of limitations. Such limitations include the prohibition of strikes for employees who are engaged in essential services. Although the limitations to the right to strike may be justified, a number of bottlenecks exists in the current scope and application of the Labour Relations Act. For example, the Labour Relations Act does not provide mechanisms in terms of which essential service employees can lawfully embark on strikes. Unlike disputes in South Africa, those about essential services in Kenya are not preceded by consensus-seeking processes such as conciliation, mediation and arbitration. Instead, essential service disputes are referred directly to the Employment and Labour Relations Court for litigation. Consequently, the rights of employees who are employed in essential services like hospitals and patients' right to access health care services can easily be violated. Due to the lacunae in the Labour Relations Act, an increase in the number of strikes in essential services has been witnessed in Kenya. This article argues that the litigation of disputes in essential services should be the option of last resort. In addition, to date, more than 11 years after the Labour Relations Act came into effect, no provisions have been incorporated or even suggested that employer and trade unions need to conclude minimum service agreements and designate employees to perform the minimum services. This article suggests that, trade unions and government can work together through adopting consultative and more inclusive approaches in order to establish an effective statutory framework that regulates the right to strike in essential services in Kenya. &nbsp