The concept of universal jurisdiction comes from international criminal law. It designates the empowerment of national criminal courts to hear a case when all of its elements are located in another State. Despite a common belief, universal jurisdiction is not specific to "the worst" crimes. It is first and foremost a technique at the service of national judges in order to fight against the impunity of certain offenses. Its study from the point of view of labor law is justified by the interest that such a technique can arouse for people working for a transnational company or a global value chain and for whom there is no guaranteed access to a judge in case of violation of their rights at work. Indeed, they are exposed to a risk of denial of justice which stems, on the one hand, from the inability of local courts to hear a trial involving a company whose economic and political weight exceeds that of the judiciary and, on the other hand, the incompetence of any other judge. The mechanisms elaborated within the framework of corporate social responsibility no more than the regional instruments for the protection of human rights guarantee employees access to justice. The universal jurisdiction of the judge turns out to be a useful technique for these workers. But it is also an operational technique : not only does its characteristic elements coincide with the difficulties of access to justice for workers, but, moreover, it is already emerging in transnational social litigation.