GAZETTE NOTICE NO. 6511

PURSUANT to section 337 (I) of the Companies Act, is notified for general information thit undermentioned companies are dissolved. Name Name of cotnpany F 98/2008 %dB* Industries Limited F2/2004 Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited Dated the 16th Jumpy, 2008. S. M. NDISYA. Deputy Registrar of Companies. AZEr12181=CE No. 6512 ,INHE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF KENYA CAUSE NO. 81 OF 2001 Netter 10EM10211110N OF VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS TRADE 111111110NS AND ALLIED ORGANIZATIONS AND KENYA UNION OF THE BLIND Issues infiligpstte: (a) on of Rugo-ini Wandi Stoni. (b)lbsithwdooprof John Mkono Mwenje, Bernadette Outgo, Ibrahim Maim Aim Alex Ochola Osalo, Samuel Maws, Francis emrrhti~t.gavyanyu, Salome Mandela Otoli, Loise Muthoni MilhannithlibettesiGmur Nzioka 2. Rho•lianya Union of Voluntary Associations Trade Unions and Allied lepolizations shall hereinafter be referred „t0 as to the CleimantsinthrKenya Union of the blind shall hereinafter be referred to as theilltepondents. 3.VisitwOrrtspole was Swank ow-parte in Nairobi on Vilt February' and Istleseditir,2902rnspretively The sth-parte hearing was.done by the Claimmierwho •relied.* their written and werbal submissions. The Respondasts-lailed make an appearance in Court despite several warnings. 3. The Minister for Labour referred this dispute to the Industrial Court for tionaideeathan And *lamination on 22nd August, 2001 in moist sof the ,powers vested in him by section 41 of the Trade Disputes Act Cap 234 Laws of Kenya. The reference, together with the *lonely Certificates signed by the Ministers for Labour and the Ulmer Commissioner were received by the Court on 27th August, 2001. Background: Tice respondents are a voluntary Membership Organisation of the Blind people in Kenya and they have an operation agreement with the Swedish Organisation of the Handicapped International aid foundation for its financing among other well wishers. The one - grievant Mr. Ruo-ini Stoni whose services were terminated on 1st August, 1996 was employed as a night watchman on 10th April, 1986 with a consolidated wage of KSh. 3,000 while the other nine grievants were engaged in employment on diverse dates and their occupations and salary differed from one employee to the other. They were all declared redundant on 1st December, 1995. SUBMISSION BY THE CLAIMANTS The Claimants submitted that one of their member who was a night watchman used to work from 530 p.m. to 8,00 a.m. the next day for seven days a week without any compensation for overtime or Public Holidays worked up to 1 str August, 1996 when his contract of service was terminated on allegation that he was not committed to his work. The Claimants further averred that this dispute arose when they served the Respondents with a check off list and draft memorandum or Recognition Agreement which they declined to accept and sigh. The Claimants had no option but to report-this matter to the Minister for Labour culminating the termination of Ruo-ini Wandi Stoni and the redundancy of the other nine grievants. The Claimants submitted that the termination and mass redundancy were as a result of the grievants association with the union for the purpose of obtaining recognition and negotiating a CBA which the Respondents wanted to defeat. The Recognition dispute was pending with Minister for Labour. Claimants told the Court that their members were qualified to tre_tierbucted statutory contributions towards N.S.S.F. as stipulated by the funds Act which the Respondents had failed to do, and the Respondents are financially mond since they get support from the Swedish Organisation of the Handicapped International aid lion vine Aid Programme Officer did visit the lieepondents offices in 1995 and 1996 and *messed the foundation's soniestad *smolt for the Respondents with the staff „getting good malayinid enjoying better terms and conditionsof service. 'Thoproposal of ivorkers better terms by the S.H.LA. Foundation representative, did not augur well for the. management thencethey decided to resort to the mass rediasimicy without following theilaidslown procedure. The Claimants further submitted Ilist the Respondents were -fit and that is why they did not attend the Court during the *mien and even during the hearing of this dispute. They prayed the Gain tie uphold the Minister's finding and recommendation and any benefitsthat the Court may deem just to Award. AWARD The Court has carefully considered the Claimants submission both *that and written and the EPD *port and awards that the nine (9) provosts ^be paid rediindancy benefits as recommended by the Ministry of Labour• in the investigators report. Such benefits to be worked out by the CIRO. Mr. Rugo-ini Wandi Stoni should be paid normal terminals benefits in accordance with the law. The Court further awards that he should also be paid two months salary by way of compensation, for wrongful termination. JUSTICE SAEED R COCKAR, Judge. A.B. ONOARO, J. C. ODAGA, Members. GAZEI NOTICE No. 6513 THE-INDUSTRIAL COURT OF KENYA CAUSE No. 60 OF 2005 KENYA UNION OF EMPLOYEES OF VOLUNTARY AND CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION—(Claimant) VERSUS TAILORS AND TEXTILES WORKERS UNION—(Respondent) Issues in Dispute: COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT ELEMENTS Introduction. Period of agreement. Probation. Hours of work. Overtime. Medical Treatment. Allowances. Leave. Termination of employment. Transfer. Training and promotion. Rest days. Warning system. Injury. Uniform/protective clothing. Seniority progression. Basic minimum wages. General wages/increase. The Kenya Union of Employees of Voluntary and Charitable Organizations, represented by Mr. 0. B. Otieno, shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Claimant" and the Tailors and Textile Workers Union represented by the Reverend Joel K. Chebii, shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Respondent". The parties were heard in Court at Nairobi on the 22nd November, 2006 and 6th March, 2007. They relied on the written memoranda and their representatives made ,oral submissions in support of their respective cases. AWARD This dispute was referred to the Court by the Minister for Labour in exercise of powers conferred by section 8 of the Trade Disputes Act, Cap 234, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The letter of reference together with the requisite statutory certificates, being Forms G and H issued by the Labour Commissioner and the Minister for Labour under the provisions of section 14 (9) (e) and 14 (9) (f) of the Act respectively, were received by the Court on 29th April, 2005. The matter was listed for mention in Court before the Hon. Mr. Justice Jailer on 23rd May, when directions on filing of Memoranda were given. These directions were subsequently varied on divers dates in order to accommodate the parties who were unable to comply with the initial directions. The Claimant had filed its initial Memorandum of Claim on 19th May, 2005. The Respondent filed its Memorandum of Reply on the 26th July, 2006. The Claimant filed a Reply to Respondent's Memorandum on 8th November, 2006. In their initial Memorandum of Claim, the Claimant avers that it is a trade union representing employees of the Respondent Union. The Claimant avers that it executed a recognition agreement with the Respondent on 25th July, 2002. It is contended for the Claimant that after execution of the recognition agreement, the Claimant filed with the Respondent issues in dispute for consideration and negotiation of a collective agreement but that the Respondent failed and/or neglected to communicate with the Claimant. The Claimant accordingly reported the dispute to the Minister for Labour who appointed a conciliator. According to the Claimant, the Respondent failed to attend all conciliation meetings as invited, and hence the reference of the dispute to the Court for adjudication and determination. This is an interesting dispute where a trade union has a dispute with another trade union. The Claimant Union representing employees claiming, that the Respondent Union, which is the employer, has failed to negotiate and conclude a collective agreement, which would provide for terms and conditions of employment for the unionisable workers employed by the Respondent Union. It is an interesting dispute because a trade union, which should be concerned with the welfare of its workers, has allegedly refused and/or failed to provide for terms and conditions of employment of its own workers. The Court has considered the written memoranda and the oral submissions made by the representatives of the parties during the hearing of the dispute. It is observed that it is a very sad state of affairs that since 2002 when a recognition agreement was executed, it has not been possible for the parties to negotiate and conclude a collective agreement. It is also observed that the parties have been unable to agree on a single item in dispute, and the Court agrees with the representative of the Claimant Union that it is the Respondent/employer/union who have persistently refused or neglected to agree. The same attitude was evident during the proceedings in this Court when the Respondent would fail to attend Court without sufficiently good reasons for a considerable period. It is also noted that the Respondent has not made any offers to the proposals made by the Claimant. The Claimant Union has made proposals or demands of the terms and conditions of employment it wants incorporated in the collective agreement. It argues that the Respondent is in a position_ to meet and/or satisfy the proposals. It is the case for the Respondent that it cannot satisfy the demanded terms and conditions due to poor financial performance. The Court in order to get a more independent version of the economic aspect of the dispute requested the Economic Planning Division (EPD) of the Ministry of Labour to study the Memoranda, consult the parties and to prepare a report on analysis of the issues. The Court will then proceed to analyze the issues in dispute and in addition to the written memoranda and oral submissions by the parties place reliance on the EPD report, and then award accordingly. It should be observed that the Respondent also informed the Court that it had no objection to the demands of the Claimant on non-monetary issues. On clause 1, the Claimant had proposed the introduction as follows: (a)This Memorandum of Agreement shall supersede the existing terms and conditions of service, and shall apply to all unionisable employees. (b)On engagement, every employee shall be given a copy of this agreement, and will be required to sign a certificate accepting its conditions. This proposal is considered to be a reasonable provision, and there being no objection on the part of the Respondent it is awarded as demanded. Clause 2—Period of Agreement: The Claimant is demanding that the commencement date of the agreement be 1st May, 2002, and have a duration of four (4) years. It was also proposed that either party may give to the other sixty (60) days notice before 1st May, 2006 of intention to extend or amend any clause. The Court has considered the submissions made by the Claimant in support of this demand. However it is noted that the commencement date proposed is long gone. The lifetime of most collective agreement is two years. Even the proposed expiry date proposed of 1st May 2006 is also long gone. The Court awards that the commencement date of the Collective Agreement be 1st January, 2006 and expiry to be 31st December, 2007. Either party may give to the other notice of sixty days before 31st December, 2007 of intentions to extend or amend the agreement. The Court agrees with the condition that discussing of proposed amendments shall commence not later than three (3) months before expiry of the agreement. It is also a reasonable condition that where parties are negotiating, this agreement shall remain valid pending the finalization of the negotiations. It is therefore awarded as proposed by the Claimant Union. Clause 3—Probation: The Claimant Union has proposed that a worker employed on regular contract of employment to serve on a three (3) month probation. During the probationary period, the contract may be terminated on notice of one (I) month or pay in lieu thereof. It is also proposed that a worker terminated during the probationary period be paid service benefits of four (4) days for each month worked. This is .3211ACESINAtaliSME considered a reasonable proposal and since there is no objection bridle Respondent is awarded as, demanded. Clause 4—Hours of Work: The Claimant pmposed that the working week shall consist of thirty five (35) hours spread over five days from Monday to Friday. It is also .proposed that a working day should comprise of seven (7) hours. This is considered a reasonable demand, and as there is no objection from the Respondent is awarded as demanded. Clause 5—Overtime The Claimant has demanded that an employee be paid overtime worked as follows: (a)In excess of thirty five (35)-hours, at the basic sate plus 50%. (b)On rest day and public holiday, at the basic hourly rate plus 100% (c)Method of calculation to be: Basic Salary = hourly rate 151.6 houit This is considered a reasonable demand and it is awarded as demanded. Clause6—Medical Treatment: -The Claimant had demanded that medical treatment be provided to all workers at -the cost of the management as required by the Employment (Medical Treatment) Rules, Legal Notice No. 157/1977. This demand is considered reasonable, as it is a requirement of the law. It is awarded. as demanded. Clause 7—Allowances: The Claimant has demanded provision of several allowances: (a)Housing allowanee •at 45% of the basic wage. Thiuniarrouniis escessive bearing in mind that the law, in the RejsdatiamiNthiggas (General) Order provides tor 15% of the basin s. tilnariereo eitcourage parties to negotiates the Court considers theaderniurd wad the plectliptithalRespondent of the pooffinancisl performance, aid awards thrtnomployees be paid 18% of the basic salary as housing allowancelitelthe duration of this collective agreement. (b)Drivers e—. (i) Ewer who• works in excess of thirty five (35) hours be paid andSowance of KSh. 15,000 as overtime. The Court observer:quintet there is already a provision for overtime. This dernadd.irr,onsidered as without merit and is rejected. The driweesdhaild be paid allowance as is provided for in clause 5 on overtime. (c)Safari/Sathaimence Allowance: It is demmodaddhat for employees required to work away form area of their noruidetorkstation, an allowance of KSh. 3,000 per, day to cover meals- marever night accommodation. The -demand for an allowance isamomeable since the employer should finaace employees while wrikagremegy form their normal .stations. 'However slue to the plea thatilthirisevienitial collective agreement and considering the plea by the Rompundtherif its financial performance, the court awards KSh. 2000 fen Ones sallieil subsistence allowance for the duration this collectiamargemmtmt (d)LcaveTawalligg Allowance: The Clairithettlemends that all unionisable employees proceeding for annual lanwarkeentitled to KSh. 3500. • The Gam Bras .:considered this :demand, and .the financial - nerfonoanceaddlhe Respondent and considers that KSh. 2000 is reasonable asenninfor this allowance. It is so _awarded. In case of termination lhotareqcompletion of twelve (12) months, the Claimant has demandditionth terminated employee be entitled to 75% of leave traveling alleramtase. The demand is reasonable and is awarded. detthotiegMlarmarmc: Ililthaainamithastdrananded that acting allowance-be paid to an ;do act to- perform duties of a higherpost. It is _tleananderdithutthe qualifying period for payment of Acting allowance -shill berme Olday. 'ThiselearairdenActing Allowance has been considered: The Court .awardarhatthe qualifying period for acting allowance be fourteen (14) days. IkelSialleant -has demanded that every employee held up, in the -office cindetrup to 6.00 p.m. shall be revided with transport by the management This demand is awarded subject to the amendment that it is in employee who is held beyond 6.00 p.m in the office on duty, he shall be-provided with transport. The Claimant has demanded payment of allowance called Field Mguu for every messenger,- Collector, °itemizer and Disputes and Industrial Relations Officers, and the amount proposed is KSh. 5,000 per month. The Claimant has not established any justification for this allowance and therefore the Court rejects the demand. The demand of payment of allowance of KSh. 4;000 to KSh. 6000 and KSh. 9,000 per month to be paid as recruitment, organizing and Public Relations to certain employees such as collector, Disputes Officer and. Economist/Research and others is considered to have been made without any basis being laid for it, and the Court rejects this demand. Clause 8—Leave: The Claimant has listed demands on certain eategories of Leave such as Annual Leave, Maternity, Sick, Accumulated and Compassionate leave. Since the Respondent stated that it has no problem with non- monetary issues, and the demands appear reasonable, the demands are awarded as made. Clause 9—Termination of EMployment: The Claimant has made specific • proposals on _termination • of employment. There is no response from the Respondent except the general statement that it has no, problem with non-monetary issues. The.alemands. by the Claimant ,has been considered and found to be Traosonabie. The Court awards them as made. -rithe,saxte to,apply to the demands on.dermiemion by Death and Aliadtterianey:and--on retirement eaddernistonirit.„ esameewasavarded =male Claimant has demanded that where an employee is to be thanderred to anger workstation -he shall be tgiven Artier written areiceatdrree (3). months. It is also demandedahat be:be given dqmsopriate.cost of travel for the employee, haiiiiy and Srelongings fromdeiginal place Of residence to the new placerefresideorte. - There tisravaddisional demand of subsistence at the ,dailreate Mb. 3;000' for ,osingle employee to Mb. 12,0004cm a meanie, emPleyee. This „demand is- easonable but irawarded sobjeettallheimiensineent that the „rwmpriate costa travel is from the riresesteglirecerf residence to the 01149.:1411Ca of residence; and the daily rateraftethirrence is Kshs 2000/- fordloogdoyees for sixty (60) days. Cisme II—Training and Promotion The „Claimant had demanded that the management will give consideration to a qualified employee and shall facilitate attendance of tmiutiognerninar locally and internationally. There is the additional demand that an employee who passes prescribed examinations shall be ,aripmered and subject .to availability of suitable .vacancy shall be soodilasedifor promotion. This is a -reasonable -demand and it is aeassitioglywarded. Clause 12--Rest days: The Claimant herein demands Ssituriaysruid Sundays shall be rest days as shall be all gazetted Public Holidays, which shall be-with full pay. This demand is reasonable and is accordingly awarded as demanded. Clause 13—Warning System: The Claimant's demands ruder this bead amountsto a reiteration - of the revisions in the Regulation of Wages (General) Coder. The demands are reasonable and are awarded as made; that is— • 1820 ' THE KENYA GAZETTE 18th July, 2008 (a)If an employee commits any misconduct, he/she shall be charged, being given in writing the particulars of the charges, then he/she shall be given a hearing in the presence of a union - representative at the shop floor with recorded and signed minutes thereof. (b)If the employee is found guilty, he/she shall be given a written warning and a copy thereof given to the shopsteward. (c)(i) If within a period of twelve (12) months,, the employee has not committed another misconduct, that warning has expired and therefore shall be removed from that employee's personal file, and no reference shall be made thereto. (ii) If the employee continues to commit misconducts and has been charged, heard and warned up to four times within 'a period of twelve (12) months, this will be a cause for termination, and the management shall have the right to apply Clause 9 (a) of this agreement. Clause 14—Injury: The Claimant has demanded that the provisions of the Workmen's ( Compensation Act shall apply to any employee who sustains an injury in the course of employment. The demand is in accordance with the requirements of a written law and is considered reasonable and is accordingly awarded as demanded. Clause 15—Uniform /Protective Clothing: The Claimant has demanded that the management shall provide required uniform/Protective clothing to security staff, messengers, drivers, cleaners, tailoring instructors and Artisans. It is also demanded that the management provide enough shoe polish, detergents and bar soaps every calendar month. This is a reasonable demand and is accordingly awarded. Clause 16—Seniority Increment/Progression: The Claimant had demanded there be a basic salary increment progression every year of between KSh. 200 to KSh. 1000 for employees who have 2 years up to 10 years of service. This demand has monetary implications and needs to be considered very carefully. It is noted that the EPD did not consider this item. There is no basis provided by the Claimant and the Court considers that this item be negotiated by the parties during the subsequent collective agreement. The demand is rejected at this time. Clause 17—Basic Minimum Wages: The Claimant has demanded that basic salaries be pegged as: Job Grade A. from KSh. 4000 to KSh. 6500. Job Grade B from to KSh. 6800. Job Grade C from KSh. 8600 to KSh. 17,500 Job Grade D from to KSh. 19,000 Job Grade E from KSh. 16,000 to KSh. 21,000. Job Grade F from up to KSh. 24,500 Job Grade G from up to KSh. 26,800 There was no basis laid by the Claimant to support this claim. According to the EPD, the Respondent has improved the basic minimum wages and some cadres which were below the statutory minimum are now being paid as provided by the General order. This being the first collective agreement, it is directed that all employees be paid in accordance with the current General Order with effect from the commencement of this collective agreement, and any arrears due to be paid within six (6) months of this award. In the premises the demands made by the Claimant are modified accordingly. Clause 18—General Wage Increase: The Claimant has demanded that all employees receive general wage increase with effect from 1st May, 2002 for a 4 year period of 150% for the lowest paid and 50% for the highest paid per year. The EPD report noted that the parties had not concluded any collective agreement and that there is no compensation period as provided for in the Wages Guidelines 2 (1). The Claimant contends that the Respondent is able to pay because it raised membership subscription from KSh. 65 by 2.5% from the year 2001, and that it runs the Institute of Tailoring and cutting which charges fees. This contention has been challenged by the Respondent who claim that most factories employing its members have closed down and this means decreased membership. This has been admitted with qualification by the Claimant. The Respondent has maintained that the Institute has accumulated debts in arrears of salaries for the staff who operate it. Even if the Claimant has maintained that the arrears have arisen due to lack of proper management by the Respondent, there was no sufficient proof that the Respondent is in a position to pay and sustain the General Wages increase as demanded by the Claimant. In this regard, the Court holds that there be a moratorium or freeze of wage increase during the period of this collective agreement. The demand is thus rejected. The Court notes with concern that the employees of the Respondent have not enjoyed the benefits of a collective agreement. The Respondent is hereby reprimanded for its intransigence and refusal to negotiate but punishing the employer for this laxity may not be in the best interests for the employment of the workers. The situation can only be remedied by expeditious negotiation and conclusion of the collective agreement. The Court hereby directs the parties to negotiate and conclude a collective agreement in accordance with the provisions of this award and have it registered in accordance with the law within ninety (90) days. The Labour Commissioner to appoint and designate a suitably senior labour officer to have this exercise carried out expeditiously. Dated the 27th March, 2007. JUSTICE ISAAC E. K. MUKUNYA, Judge. NASHON N. UDOTO PAUL M. OSERO Members. GAZEI I E NOTICE No. 6514 THE KENYA POWER AND LIGHTING COMPANY LIMITED SCHEDULE OF TARIFFS AND RATES 2008 FOR SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION ADJUSTMENT PURSUANT to clause 2 of part III of the Schedule of Tariffs and Rates 2008, notice is given that all prices for electrical energy specified in part II of the said schedule will be liable to a foreign exchange fluctuation adjustment of minus 3 cents per kWh. for all meter readings taken in July, 2008. Information used to calculate the adjustment: KenGen (FZ) KPLC (HZ) IPPs (IPPZ) Total (FZ+HZ+IPPZ Exchange Gain/(Loss) (1,224,199.46) (7,270,660.82) (4,773,103.80) (13,267,964.08) Total units generated and purchased excluding exports in June, 2008 (G) = 534,662,855 kWh. ' Gazette Notice No 6185 of 2008, is revoked. L: K. NJAGI, Company Secretary. 18th July, 2008 THE KENYA GAZETTE 1821' GAZb I b. NOTICE No. 6515 THE KENXA POWER AND LIGHTING COMPANY LIMITED SCHEDULE OF TARIFFS AND RATES 2008 FOR SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY FUEL COST ADJUSTMENT PURSUANT to clause I of part III of the Schedule of Tariffs and Rates 2008, notice is given that all prices for electrical energy specified in part II of the said schedule will be liable to a fuel cost adjustment of plus 649 cents per kWh. for all meter readings taken in July, 2008. Information used to calculate the adjustment: Power Station Fuel Price in ShiKg. (Ci) Fuel Displacement Charges June, 2008 June, 2008 ShikWh. Variation from May, 2008 Prices Increasel(Decrease) - Units in kWh. (Gi) Kipevu I Diesel Plant Kipevu II Diesel Plant (Tsavo) Kipevu Gas Turbine I & II Nairobi South G.T. 38.42 40.71 90.02 3.06 3.84. 13.99 30,278,000 44,926,600 19,T07,000 Nairobi South Diesel 48.04 5.91 25,297,942 Mumias Sugar Company 0.83 0.03 414,140 UETCL Import 82.04 10.15 2,105,445 UETCL Export 82.04 10.15 (3,641,720) Emergency Power (Embakasi) 82.00. 10.15 54,267,780 Emergency Power (Eldoret) 84.71 9.79 19,298,080 Garissa Diesel 89.10 7.67 813,884 Lamu Diesel 84.18 6.68 387,647 Lodwar Diesel 111.84 6.20 245,770 Mandera Diesel 110.75 2.50 < 271,943 Marsabit Diesel 61,59 0.04 234,310 Wajir Diesel 72.37 (1.79) 319,840 Moyale Diesel 106.78 0.58 148,004 Mpeketoni 100.00 33,351 Hola 115.30 42,486 Merti 103.41 3,125 Habaswein 115.88 7,407 Total units generated and purchased including hydros excluding export (G) = 534,662,855 kWh. Gazette Notice No 6186 of 2008, is revoked. L. K. NJAGI, Company Secretary.