Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 63

Summary: - Determining subject-matter jurisdiction. The criterion is the relief sought by the claimant. - Collective labor disputes falling within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Board. They are those arising between an employer and all or a group of its workers by reason of work or its conditions. The implication. A dispute is characterized as collective even if its cause relates to the work itself and not merely to its conditions. The purpose of this: a stable climate in labor 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. The consequence: it is regarded as a collective labor dispute. The Arbitration Board has jurisdiction over it. Rule: It is established in the jurisprudence of this Court that the criterion for determining 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 Labor in the Private Sector that "Collective labor disputes are disputes arising between one or more employers and all or a group of its workers by reason of work or by reason of working conditions" means—as stated in the explanatory memorandum to that Law—that the collective labor disputes falling within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Board stipulated in Article 128 of the same Law are those arising between an employer and all or a group of its workers whenever they concern the reason of work or working conditions. Thus, this provision broadened the concept of a collective dispute so that it is regarded as such if it arises by reason of work and is not confined merely to conditions, as was its counterpart, Article 88 of Law No. 38 of 1964. The legislature was keen that a dispute should be characterized as collective even if its cause relates to the work itself and not merely to its conditions, as explained above, with the aim of achieving a stable climate in labor relations. That being so, 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 fixed offshore oil platforms in the Neutral Zone and their designated assembly point. Consequently, this dispute is a collective labor dispute because it relates to the work itself and arises by reason thereof, and falls within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Board stipulated in Article 128 of the aforementioned Law No. 6 of 2010. Since the judgment under appeal adhered to this view, it correctly applied the law, and the challenge to it in this respect is without basis.