Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 220965,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/220965/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 221,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Muturi",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 215,
        "legal_name": "Justin Bedan Njoka Muturi",
        "slug": "justin-muturi"
    },
    "content": "Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, at page 358, subsection (2) of Clause 30 says: \"Without prejudice to sub-section 1(b) a subordinate National has jurisdiction to determine suits disputes---\" I believe what it should read is: \"A subordinate Labour Court has jurisdiction---\" So, you should remove the word \"national\". Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am taking this time because this Bill is straight forward and when we come to the Committee Stage, we should not waste a lot of time. Even if it is next week, we should be able to pass it. Paragraph (e) of the same clause talks about jurisdiction between employers and employees says:- \"Breach of a statutory duty imposed by any Labour Act\" When you say, \"any Labour Act\"--- I had talked about this earlier on; let us not talk about \"Labour Act.\" There will be duties imposed on employers or employees by the Employment Act; the Bill we debated last week, when it becomes law and any other law. Period! Surely, the jurisdiction of these courts is with respect to labour-related matters and nothing else. That is why it is being created as a special jurisdiction. It goes on to say at subsection (4): \"Any matter which is referred to the Minister for conciliation in terms of the Labour Relations Act as a trade dispute shall not be referred to a subordinate National Labour Court\" The word \"national\" should be deleted because we do not have a sub-ordinate National Labour Courts. Indeed, even at subsection (v), the reference to \"subordinate national labour court across May 17, 2007 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 1457 second line should be struck off. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I found something very interesting at Clause 35. It has to do with the dignity of the people who appear before labour courts, whether national or subordinate. It says:- \"No person against whom a complaint is made under this Act, who is not immediately before the hearing of the complaint in actual custody, shall be compelled to enter the dock or place usually assigned for prisoners under trial in the court or shall be otherwise treated as under arrest during the hearing of the complaint\". I think this is very progressive. If I happen to have an employee who complains against me; now that I am required to keep records, he should not treat me like a criminal or a common thug. For you to feel that I am the person against whom a complaint is launched, you put me in the dock. I think this is very good and I congratulate the Minister. Even for employees, it is not a crime. If you have not been arrested and you came in obedience--- I know this because I have dealt with matters of this nature brought to me at that time. It is sometimes very demeaning when the employers just comes there because a complaint has been launched and you throw him into the dock. It is not a very good experience. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, another very good invention that I congratulate the Minister for, welcome and support is the creation of a separate office of Director of Employment, distinct from the Commissioner of Labour. That is a very welcome move. Overall, because I did not have occasion to get through all the details, I want to say that I support this Bill. It is a Bill in the right direction. It abets our law relating to the institutions that deal with labour matters, or labour disputes. With those few remarks, I beg to support."
}