Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 158

Summary: - Collective labour disputes within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Board. They are those arising between an employer and all or a group of his workers by reason of work or its conditions. Its implication. A dispute is characterized as collective even if its cause relates to the work itself and not solely to its conditions. The purpose of this: a stable climate in labour relations. - The workers' dispute concerning their entitlement to wages equal to their ordinary wages for the time taken to travel the distance, there and back, between their workplace at the operations site or on oil platforms and their designated assembly centre. A dispute concerning the work itself and arising by reason of it. The effect thereof: its classification as a collective labour dispute. The Arbitration Board has jurisdiction over it. Rule: It is established in the jurisprudence of this Court that the determining consideration in identifying the subject-matter jurisdiction of each judicial body is the relief sought by the claimant. The provision in Article 123 of Law No. 6 of 2010 concerning Labour in the Private Sector that "Collective labour disputes are disputes arising between one or more employers and all or a group of his workers by reason of work or by reason of working conditions" means—as stated in the explanatory memorandum to this Law—that collective labour disputes within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Board provided for in Article 128 of the same Law are those arising between an employer and all or a group of his workers whenever they relate to the reason of work or working conditions. Thus, this provision expanded the concept of a collective dispute so that it is considered such if it arises by reason of work, and was not confined merely to conditions, as was its counterpart, Article 88 of Law No. 38 of 1964. The legislature was careful to confer the collective character on a dispute even if its cause relates to the work itself and not solely to its conditions, as explained above, with the aim of achieving a stable climate in labour relations. That being so, and as the dispute brought between the appellant company and its workers concerns their entitlement to wages equal to their ordinary wages for the time taken to travel the distance, there and back, between their workplace at the Khafji Joint Operations site or on the fixed offshore oil platforms in the Neutral Zone and their designated assembly centre, this dispute is therefore a collective labour dispute because it relates to the work itself and arises by reason of it. It falls within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Board provided for in Article 128 of the aforementioned Law No. 6 of 2010. As the challenged judgment adhered to this view, it correctly applied the law, and the objection to it in this respect is unfounded.