Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 395

Summary: - Determination of subject-matter jurisdiction. The determining factor is the relief sought by the claimant. - Collective labour disputes over which the Arbitration Panel has jurisdiction. They are disputes arising between an employer and all or a group of his workers by reason of the work or its conditions. Implication. A dispute is characterised as collective even if its cause relates to the work itself and not merely to its conditions. The purpose thereof: stability of the climate of labour relations. - A dispute by workers concerning their entitlement to wages equal to their ordinary wages for the time taken to travel the distance, outward and return, between their workplace at the operations site or on oil platforms and their designated assembly point. A dispute concerning the work itself and arising by reason thereof. Effect: it is considered a collective labour dispute. The Arbitration Panel has jurisdiction over it. Rule: It is established in the jurisprudence of this Court that the determining factor in defining the subject-matter jurisdiction of each judicial body is the relief sought by the claimant. The provision of 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 the work or by reason of the conditions of work” means—as stated in the Explanatory Memorandum to this Law—that collective labour disputes over which the Arbitration Panel provided for in Article 128 of the same Law has jurisdiction are those arising between an employer and all or a group of his workers whenever they relate to the work or the conditions of work. Thus, this provision has broadened the concept of a collective dispute so that it is considered such if it arises by reason of the work, and is 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 upon a dispute even if the cause of the dispute relates to the work itself and not merely to its conditions, as explained above, with the aim of achieving a stable climate in labour relations. That being so, and whereas the dispute before the Court 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, outward and return, between their workplace at the Khafji Joint Operations site or on the fixed offshore oil platforms in the Neutral Zone and their designated assembly point, this dispute is therefore a collective labour dispute because it relates to the work itself and arises by reason thereof. It falls within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Panel provided for in Article 128 of the aforementioned Law No. 6 of 2010. Since the challenged judgment adhered to this view, it correctly applied the law, and the challenge thereto in this respect is without foundation.