HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 222355,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/222355/?format=api",
"text_counter": 198,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Muturi",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 215,
"legal_name": "Justin Bedan Njoka Muturi",
"slug": "justin-muturi"
},
"content": "Thank you, Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, for giving me this opportunity to contribute to this Bill. I want to start by saying that I support. I can see that my good friend, the Minister for Labour and Human Resource Development was getting apprehensive. However, like I said yesterday and the day before while contributing to The Employment Bill, I just think there has been a problem in sequencing. Since this is among the very few Bills that are coming from this Ministry, we can understand and excuse the inexperience noticed. Although, I want to appreciate that when the Minister, during the Eight Parliament, was the Chairman of the Departmental Committee that actually is responsible for these kind of Bills, we used to see a lot of action. Indeed, I think part of the reason why a number of us--- I want to appreciate the comments made yesterday by Mr. Wetangula about the work done by Departmental Committees. Had Mr. Wetangula been an hon. Member in the Eighth Parliament, he would actually have been sorry to observe that the very Committee which should be guiding this House in debating these five Bills - which I believe are very important and critical to this country - appears to have gone to sleep. This is quite unlike what we used to see the Minister do when he chaired that same Committee during the Eighth Parliament. It was an extremely active Committee and credit goes to the Minister. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, once again, as we begin to debate this, as is obvious, 1278 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES May 10, 2007 not a single hon. Member of the Departmental Committee chaired by a fellow Medical Doctor, Dr. Manduku, is present in the House. This Bill was referred to that Committee so that they can go through it, tooth comb it and file a report to this House. This will ensure that as we debate, we know that the Committee has gone through every Clause of the Bill. It is not expected, the world over, that Parliament, in its plenary, would be able to do that work of tooth combing bills. I, therefore, feel sad that, once again, we are engaging in debate of this very important Bill without the benefit of any report from the Departmental Committee. This Bill is a bit more straightforward than the one which has just passed the Second Reading. If you look at the Memorandum of Objects and Reasons, it is clearly stated that:- \"It is to provide a legal framework to promote freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining, to streamline the registration process of trade unions, employees' organisations and federation of trade unions and employers' organisations, to promote a mechanism for the effective management of property, funds and accounts of trade unions, employers' organisations and the respective federations and to promote expedition and conclusive dispute settlement.\" I think it is very clear, safe for the fact that we have said that the Minister and his team assumed that Parliament plays a rubber-stamp role. This is Bill No.8; of course, it is making reference to Bill No.9 - The Labour Institutions Act. Of course, there is no such Act, as we noted even yesterday. There are only two areas that one can quarrel with. Therefore, I will take an extremely short time to give the Official Response. I will go straight to page 235, at the very top. There is the definition given of the word \"award\". It is indicated that:- \"Award means an award made by the National Labour Court.\" I just want to find out from the Minister when he makes his reply, whether since--- This is now the practical difficulty that we are put in. I am forced to debate things which are provided for in a Bill which was read for the First Time yesterday - The Labour Institutions Act. It is actually Bill No.9. It is not even an Act. Therefore, either by the acquiescence of the Chair or of the House, I should be allowed to anticipate debate. So, I am put in a very awkward position. I want to find out from the Minister's response, if the award is made by the National Labour Court, what then is to be termed of \"various court results similar to awards which are made by the subordinate labour courts which are proposed in the Labour Institutions Act\", which like I have said, is Bill No.9 that has not yet even matured for debate? I just want to invite the Minister to think that, may be, even those awards by those subordinate labour courts should be included. Whatever kind of awards they make there should also be included in this definition of an award so that what they do there becomes recognisable. This is because not all of those decisions are always appealed against. At times, like the hon. Mungatana has just said---I like the innovativeness of this Bill. There is the area of conciliators. So, it means that, actually, at that level a decision can be made that satisfies all parties to a dispute. Therefore, in the case of a dispute that is before a subordinate labour court being adjudicated in one way or another and an award being made, which satisfies the parties in that dispute, then that kind of award should be included in the definition of an \"award\" in this Bill. I would invite the Minister to look into that. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am only assuming that the word \"Board\" which is included there stands for the National Labour Board established under the Labour Institutions Act. I hope that the Minister will not appoint any other Board and only then stick to that. There is also the definition of \"Executive Director\". I wonder whether we should limit it to only mean the head of an employers' organisation or employers' federation. Supposing a trade May 10, 2007 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 1279 union or any other union decided that their boss, that is, their head, should also be called an \"Executive Director\", are you saying that by operation of this Act, they will be in breach of the law? These titles are used quite liberally and we should not be restrictive. I think that during the Committee of the Whole House, we would be able to discuss and agree with the Minister. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is something that I find new on page 236 of this Bill. It states that: \"Judge means the Judge of the Labour Court appointed under the Labour Institutions Act.\" I assume that then the judge at the National Labour Court is not one of them. Is that the case or is it that the word \"Judge\" shall mean, for purposes of this Act, a judge appointed to serve in the National Labour Court or the Labour Court? This is because you appear to have two cadres of courts, that is, the Labour Court and the National Labour Court. If it is not the intention to have the two cadres, then it is important to come out clearly on this matter because just below the Bill states:- \"National Labour Court means National Labour Court established under the Labour Institutions Act.\" However, up there, the Bill states that \"Judge\" means judge of the Labour Court and not the National Labour Court. You could get into some practical difficulties, especially from legal practitioners when they begin questioning whether decisions by certain persons were actually decisions by the kind of persons envisaged in the Bill. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have no quarrel with the definition of the \"Registrar\". If he is meant to play a certain important role, there is need also to provide for his appointment. There is need to provide for the mechanism of appointing the \"Registrar\". Is he to be appointed by the Minister in consultation with the various labour organisations or an advisory board? It is important to specify that. On page 238, there is Clause 3(1)(a) and (b). There is no Clause 3(2). So, there is no point of having Clause 3(1) and then provide for (a) and (b) and no other. It should just be Clause 3(a) and (b). That is the proper arrangement. It is just a question of form. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I was reading through this Bill and listening to the Minister, I wondered what his position is. The Bill states:- \"This Act shall not apply to any person in respect of his employment or service- (a) in the Armed Forces or in any reserved Force thereof. (b) in the Kenya Police, the Administration Police Force, the Kenya Prisons Service and the National Youth Service (NYS) or in any other reserve Force or service thereof.\" For the case of the clause that we have just concluded discussing, the Government will be bound. What is the position of the staff employed by the Parliamentary Service Commission (PSC)? Have you thought about that? We have staff here in Parliament employed by the PSC. Are they entitled to form themselves into some union? Can they do that and will the PSC be bound by this Bill or the Employment Bill that we are going to pass? As we define who is bound, I think there is need to think about the people employed by the PSC. You never know, somebody could very well, at some point in time, try to, if it suits them to do so, put in some disclaimer and argue that staff of Parliament are either covered or not covered, depending on what favours them at whatever stage. I am just giving the Minister food for thought. It is something that I would want the Minister to consider."
}