HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 222359,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/222359/?format=api",
"text_counter": 202,
"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, Clause 8(1) states:- \"Every trade union, employers' organisation or federation has a right to- (a) subject to the provision of this Act determine its own constitution and rules; (b) hold elections to elect its officers; Is it just to hold elections? Should we not be a bit specific and say, \"hold periodic elections\"? It should be periodic otherwise people will do elections and for 10 or 20 years, they would not hold other elections. They should be made to hold periodic elections. Those are some of the things that the Registrar should look at in the constitutions of trade unions or employers' organisations whether they provide for the holding of periodic elections for their officers. I think that is important. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am moving on to Clause 10 which provides that:- \"If there is a dispute about the interpretation of application of any application of any provision of this part, any party to the dispute may refer the dispute in writing, (a) to the Minister appoint a conciliator as specified in part 8---\" I am just wondering, supposing my very good friend Dr. Kulundu received an application and he felt that this is an election year and it could wait until elections are held, would he still be acting within the law? Should we not require that Dr. Kulundu acts within some specified time frame? So that whoever is applying or asking him to appoint a conciliator feels that the Minister has actually served him without unreasonable delay. Therefore, I am suggesting that we could say that, the Minister, upon receipt of the application and having consulted, shall appoint a conciliator within a specified time frame. That, I think the Minister with his team are better placed to know. If it was me, I would say within three days. But perhaps, in the Ministry, the experience may be different. It might require two weeks or 30 days. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, if you go to Clause 12 where it says:- \"The Registrar shall issue a certificate within 30 days of receiving an application, unless the application is defective or the name of the proposed trade union or employers' organization is the same as that of an existing trade union or employers' organization.\" I am wondering, if the Registrar is required to issue a certificate within 30 days and finds that the application is defective, is she or he required to write back to the applicant within the same period of 30 days? You should make that provision clear. That, within the same period, he or she must issue the certificate. I think this is a good Clause. I suspect that it could be the one to provide for under Clause 20 although it deals with something slightly different. But again, that is food for thought when we go into Committee of the whole House for the Minister and his team to consider. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, Subclause 5 states:- \"The Registrar may withdraw a certificate issued under this section if the registrar has reason to believe that the certificate was obtained by false misrepresentation or as a result of a mistake\". Again, I think that anybody who has been aggrieved by the decision of the Registrar in that respect, would be at liberty to go to court to challenge the decision of the Registrar. Unless it is the desire of the Ministry that a dispute like that one could go to the various dispute resolution mechanisms provided for within this Bill. Maybe the Minister could specify that. If a person has their certificate withdrawn, do they seek redress in the labour courts or the national courts or do they go the ordinary courts? We should make some distinction so that people do not think that if they went to May 10, 2007 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 1281 the normal court to seek redress, then somebody goes somewhere and argues that there is a mechanism provided for under the Labour Relations Act. May be you could just specify that if a person has his or her certificate withdrawn, they can actually lodge a protest or complaint for resolution with one of the institutions that is proposed in the other Bill. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, Clause 20 says:- \"If the Registrar is not satisfied that a trade union or employers' organization or federation meets the requirements for registration and refuses the application for registration, the Registrar, shall advise the trade union, the employers' organization or federation, the reasons for that refusal in form \"D\" set out in the second schedule.\" The point that I want to draw here is that, this should also be done within some specified time frame to avoid causing unnecessary anxiety which could very easily result in some form of stress or other maladies that are associated with anxiety or extreme anxiety as the case may be. I think it is a good idea for the Bill to provide for the way the dues of members to organizations are treated. I would want to commend the Minister and his team for that. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, Clause 60, Page 282, states:- \"Every collective agreement shall be submitted to the National Labour Court for registration within 14 days of its conclusion.\" As I had said with regard to the other Bill, this is a very good provision but I am wondering, now that we are in the Information Technology (IT) era, whether we should not provide for its publication elsewhere other than at the National Labour Courts. But I think that the Minister and his team will advise when we go into Committee Stage. Subclause 7 on Page 283 states:- \"The National Labour Court shall give reasons for refusing to register any collective agreement.\" Again, my proposal is, let us not leave it to eternity. We must fix time lines within which the National Labour Court should give those reasons because it could easily cause a lot of unrest. If the National Labour Court is to have the confidence of workers and members of any organization, then it must give reasons within a stipulated time frame, why it refuses to register any collective agreement that applied to be registered with it. Similarly at Clause 78, on Page 291, Part 10; Strikes and Lock-Outs, it states that:- \"No person shall take part in a strike or lock-out or in any conduct in contemplation of a strike or a lock-out if, among other things---\" Several things are proposed there. For instance part (c) says:- \"The parties have agreed to refer the trade dispute to the National Labour Court or to arbitration.\" Again, my proposal is that even when those disputes are referred to arbitration of the National Labour Court, we must require those arbitrators at the courts to arbitrate within a specified time limit and not in omnibus provisions like \"without unreasonable delay\" because undue delay cannot be defined. It is very elastic. I would like to point out some small typographical error that the Minister should consider, at Clause 78, on Page 291, Subclause 1(e). It says: \"If the trade dispute was not referred for...\" then it reads 62(4). I think this is a mistake. You can remove this. This is a typographical mistake, because it should continue to read in the next page: \"If the trade dispute was not referred for conciliation in terms of Section 62(4)...\" I think that is the way it should read, not the way it is framed here."
}