JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
There had been a simmering dispute between the appellant and the 1st respondent regarding who between them represents the unionisable employees of the 2nd respondent. Both unions claimed to represent the said employees though the appellant as opposed to the 1st respondent already had in place a recognition agreement with the 2nd respondent as well as a Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Consequently, in a span of one month, between 31st March 2013 and 25th April 2013, the 1st respondent filed several claims in the Industrial Court being 116, 241 and 587 all of 2013. The first claim was against the 2nd respondent and the appellant in which it sought to stop the retrenchment programme commenced on 31st December, 2012 by the 2nd respondent and an order that the 2nd respondent be compelled to engage it in a proper and structured negotiations that would culminate in the 2nd respondent’s unionisable employees getting their rightful dues.
In the second claim which was agains…