Coca‑Cola Beverages Ltd is facing resistance from workers after spouses of unionised employees were removed from the company’s medical scheme for failing to produce marriage certificates.
The dispute has sparked questions over whether proof of marriage should be required before extending workplace benefits, and whether consultation with unions is mandatory before such changes take effect.
The Employment and Labour Relations Court has declined to order Coca-Cola to immediately restore the medical insurance. The court ruled that granting the order would effectively determine the ongoing dispute before a full trial, where key questions over the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), consultation and proof of marriage remain unresolved.
At the centre of the lawsuit filed by the Kenya Union of Commercial, Food and Allied Workers is whether employers require marriage certificates before extending workplace medical benefits to employees’ spouses.
Grant principal relief
The court said the union’s request could not be granted because it was asking for the same outcome that will only be decided after the full case is heard.
“The court is equally mindful that the order sought would effectively grant the principal relief pleaded in the main claim. The court is not persuaded that the applicant has established exceptional circumstances,” said the court.
The judge said key questions were still unresolved and would need witnesses and interpretation of the CBA, past practice, and the Marriage Act before a final decision could be made.
In the case filed in February 2026, the union says the company breached the CBA by introducing a policy requiring marriage certificates without consultation and removing spouses from the medical scheme.
It argues employees had long nominated spouses using alternative records including next-of-kin information and biodata recognised by the Social Health Authority (SHA) before the change.
But the company removed from its medical scheme all spouses of employees who had not produced marriage certificates.
The union says the firm initially agreed to suspend implementation and consider alternative evidence but later removed affected spouses in April 2025.
“The abrupt introduction of the marriage certificate requirement was implemented without considering the adverse medical and welfare consequences for affected spouses,” says the union.
It claims that Coca Cola breached the CBA by failing to consult the union, denying employee participation, and collaborating with the medical insurer to remove numerous spouses from the company medical scheme.
Voluntary benefit
However, Coca-Cola says spousal cover is a voluntary benefit under company policy rather than a contractual entitlement under the CBA.
It says the insurer introduced the marriage certificate requirement for compliance with the Marriage Act and to prevent abuse of the scheme.
The company said it negotiated a one-year grace period during 2024 and later extended the deadline while helping employees obtain certificates.
According to the response, more than 100 employees complied, and their spouses retained medical cover before implementation began.
The company rejected a conciliator’s recommendation to accept sworn affidavits instead of marriage certificates, maintaining they were not legally sufficient.
“Marriage certificates are the only legally recognised conclusive proof of marriage under the Marriage Act,” says the company.
Ruling on the union’s application, the court noted workers were notified in January 2024, attended sensitisation meetings, received reminders and were offered assistance obtaining certificates before suspensions took effect.
It also observed that the prejudice facing employees and their spouses, though significant, had to be balanced against compelling the employer to provide insurance contrary to insurer eligibility conditions before trial.
The dispute is expected to determine whether spousal medical cover forms part of negotiated employment terms or remains a discretionary workplace benefit, and whether consultation was mandatory before the policy changed.
The case is scheduled for mention on November 18, 2026.
