(NAIROBI, KENYA) – Kenya’s Employment and Labour Relations Court has rejected Coca-Cola Beverages Kenya’s bid to completely block its workers from striking, preserving their right to industrial action over unresolved employment disputes.
The court allowed the company to restrain strikes over matters covered by its existing collective bargaining agreement or already before court.
However, the judge declined the company’s request for a blanket prohibition, saying the union could still organise lawful industrial action over other unresolved grievances.
The ruling follows a dispute over job evaluation, medical benefits, outsourcing, collective bargaining negotiations and the termination of 56 employees.
The dispute also involves disagreements over the implementation of Labour Ministry recommendations and the dismissal of a union shop steward.
Coca-Cola moved to court seeking to stop the Kenya Union of Commercial, Food and Allied Workers from staging a threatened strike or taking other industrial action.
It warned that a strike could cause supply shortages, distribution breakdowns, contractual breaches and losses. It said it employed more than 1,500 workers, but the judge found insufficient evidence of irreparable harm.
“The applicant’s assertions of disruption and economic loss, without sufficient supporting evidence, does not establish irreparable harm warranting a blanket restraint,” the court ruled on 7th November 2026.
The company filed the application after the union issued a 21 day strike notice on 26th May 2026, threatening industrial action from 16th June over the disputes.
Coca-Cola argued that the threatened strike was unlawful because some grievances had been resolved through Labour Ministry conciliation. Others were covered by an existing agreement or were already pending before court.
It also accused the union of using the strike threat to frustrate disciplinary action against its chief shop steward, who had been dismissed on 5th June 2026.
The company said some grievances were resolved through conciliation, others were being addressed, and some were before court. It said job evaluation and collective bargaining negotiations produced recommendations on 18th December 2025.
On the 56 workers’ termination, Coca-Cola said a separate conciliation process produced recommendations, which it had implemented, including paying affected employees. It described the workers as seasonal staff engaged depending on work availability.
Coca-Cola said conciliation had allowed outsourcing subject to fair labour standards. It argued that coercion allegations had not undergone conciliation and that the marriage certificate dispute over medical cover was pending in another court case.
The company said the strike notice sought to frustrate disciplinary action against the shop steward, who received a show cause notice and was dismissed on 5th June for gross misconduct. It said the union refused meetings unless his dismissal was withdrawn.
For its part, the union said a recognition agreement and collective bargaining agreement remained in force, and four disputes remained unresolved.
The union accused Coca-Cola of ignoring Labour Ministry recommendations. It said the company failed to conduct the recommended job evaluation, pay terminal dues, provide medical cover for employees’ spouses and protect existing workers from displacement through outsourcing.
The union said the shop steward was dismissed for union activities, Coca-Cola missed a 16th June conciliation meeting, and police blocked its representatives from entering the premises.
Coca-Cola denied intimidation, saying job evaluation was under way and could take six months to a year. It maintained that the workers’ dispute was resolved and outsourcing was fair.
The judge said the Constitution protects the right to strike, subject to legal requirements. The union gave 21 days’ notice, above the statutory minimum, but some grievances could not support industrial action.
“The disputes concerning job evaluation and medical benefits are, however, expressly addressed in the parties’ CBA,” the judge ruled. The medical benefits dispute was also already before the court. She found that allegations of coercion and victimisation that had not undergone conciliation could not independently justify a protected strike.
But the judge did not accept Coca-Cola’s claim that the dispute over the 56 workers had been settled. The parties disagreed on whether terminal dues had been paid and whether the conciliator’s recommendations had been implemented.
“The applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated, at this stage, that the dispute has been fully resolved,” the judge said.
The court barred strikes over matters covered by the binding agreement or already before court. It directed Coca-Cola to give the union a schedule of payments to the 56 workers and any outstanding terminal dues. The judge said lawful strikes over genuine unresolved disputes remained permitted.