Why South African workers deserve better employment contracts
Photo credit: https://thoroughlyreviewed.com
Editor’s Note: This post is based on an article by Van Staden M. and Van Eck M. (2025) titled “The Case for Plain Language and Written Employment Contracts in South Africa”. Tydskrif vir die Hedendaagse Romeins Hollandse Reg/Journal of Contemporary Roman Dutch Law, Vol 88(1): pp. 106-128.)
Imagine discovering that your employer can unilaterally change your working conditions without your explicit consent or trying to decipher an employment contract filled with impenetrable legal terminology while knowing your livelihood depends on understanding its terms.
For countless South African workers, these aren’t hypothetical scenarios—they are everyday realities that highlight a significant gap in our labour legislation.
Most South Africans would be surprised to learn that there is currently no legal requirement for employment contracts to be in writing. Even when written contracts exist, they frequently contain complex legal language that many employees struggle to understand. This creates a troubling power imbalance in the workplace, potentially leaving workers vulnerable to exploitation and unfair treatment.
Our research reveals a stark contrast between consumer and employee protections in South Africa. While consumer protection laws mandate the use of plain language in customer contracts, no equivalent safeguard exists for employees. This oversight is particularly concerning given that workers, like consumers, often face challenges with literacy and language comprehension.
The current legislative framework allows employers to maintain significant flexibility in employment relationships. They can modify terms and conditions unilaterally, incorporate various policies by reference, and rely on collective agreements that workers might not fully understand. While some flexibility in employment relationships is necessary for business operations, the present system often tips the power imbalance too far in favour of employers.
Consider a worker who only has a verbal agreement about their working conditions. Without a written contract, they may struggle to prove their agreed-upon working hours, salary, or leave entitlements if a dispute arises. Likewise, consider a worker presented with a lengthy contract filled with legal terminology, required to sign it to secure their position. How can we expect meaningful consent when the terms are virtually incomprehensible to the average person?
The Basic Conditions of Employment Act currently has specific requirements for documenting employment terms, but these fall short of ensuring truly accessible written contracts. Under section 29, employers must provide employees who work more than 24 hours monthly with written particulars including: the employer’s full name and address; the employee’s name and occupation or work description; the place of work; the date employment began; ordinary working hours and days; wage rates and calculation methods; overtime rates; any additional cash payments or in-kind benefits; payment frequency; any deductions; leave entitlements; notice periods or contract duration; descriptions of any applicable bargaining council agreements; documentation of prior employment that counts toward length of service; and a list of any other documents that form part of the employment contract.
However, this list of required written particulars does not constitute a comprehensive employment contract. The Act merely ensures basic terms are documented without mandating a full written agreement between employer and employee. More concerning is that even these basic written particulars have no plain language requirement. The Act only stipulates that if an employee cannot understand the written particulars, the employer must ensure they are explained in a language and manner the employee understands. This shifts the burden on employees to indicate their lack of understanding, rather than requiring employers to make terms clear and accessible from the start.
This gap between documenting basic terms and ensuring they are truly comprehensible to workers represents a significant oversight in South African labour law. While the Act’s requirements provide some basic protections, they fail to address the fundamental need for employment relationships to be governed by clear, written contracts that both parties can readily understand.
“South Africa needs to amend its labour laws to require both written employment contracts and the use of plain language in all employment-related documentation. This isn’t merely about paperwork—it’s about fundamental fairness and transparency in employment relationships.”
This legislative oversight has tangible consequences. When employment terms are unclear or unwritten, workers are often at a disadvantage in disputes with employers. They may struggle to prove what was agreed upon or to understand their rights and duties fully. This situation particularly affects vulnerable workers in sectors like domestic work, agriculture, and retail, where power imbalances are already pronounced.
South Africa’s consumer protection laws offer valuable insights for reforming employment contracts. The Consumer Protection Act and National Credit Act both mandate plain language in consumer agreements, recognising that clear communication is essential for meaningful consent and fair business practices. These laws acknowledge that complex legal terminology can disadvantage consumers and create unfair power imbalances in commercial relationships.
The consumer protection framework provides three crucial lessons that could strengthen employment law. First, it establishes specific standards for what constitutes “plain language” - documents must be clear and understandable to people with average literacy skills and minimal legal knowledge. This objective standard helps prevent the use of unnecessarily complex terminology while maintaining legal precision.
Second, consumer protection laws place the responsibility for clear communication on the party drafting the agreement. Businesses must ensure their contracts are accessible and comprehensible, rather than expecting consumers to seek clarification or legal advice. This principle could transform employment relationships by requiring employers to make contracts understandable from the outset.
Third, these laws recognise that protecting vulnerable parties through clear communication actually benefits both sides of the agreement. When consumers understand their contracts, disputes are less likely and compliance improves. Similarly, clear employment contracts could reduce workplace disputes while helping employers maintain more stable and productive relationships with their workforce.
The parallels between consumers and employees are striking. Both groups often face similar challenges with literacy, language barriers, and limited access to legal advice. Both typically must accept or reject contracts as presented, with little room for negotiation. If we already recognise the importance of protecting consumers through plain language requirements, surely workers deserve the same consideration in agreements that govern their livelihoods.
The proven framework for consumer protection offers a ready template for reforming employment law. By applying these established principles to employment contracts, we could significantly enhance workplace fairness and transparency while building on existing legal precedent.
The solution requires decisive legislative reform. South Africa needs to amend its labour laws to require both written employment contracts and the use of plain language in all employment-related documentation. This isn’t merely about paperwork—it’s about fundamental fairness and transparency in employment relationships.
Plain language requirements would replace complex legal jargon with clear, straightforward terms that the average worker can understand. Instead of convoluted legal phrases, contracts would use straightforward language to clearly communicate rights and obligations. Written contracts would provide clear evidence of employment terms, helping prevent disputes and misunderstandings. They would serve as a reference point for both parties and provide security in knowing exactly what was agreed upon.
Some might argue that requiring written contracts adds unnecessary bureaucracy or that using plain language sacrifices legal precision. However, experience from consumer protection law demonstrates that legal documents can be both precise and understandable. The benefits of clarity and certainty far outweigh any administrative burden.
The proposed reforms would bring several significant advantages. They would provide greater clarity and certainty for both employers and employees about their rights and obligations, potentially preventing disputes and reducing the burden on our labour dispute resolution system. Written contracts in plain language would help address power imbalances in employment relationships, enabling workers to better understand and assert their rights. These changes would also align employment protections with existing consumer protections, recognising that workers deserve to understand the agreements they are entering into.
In a time where transparency and fairness are increasingly expected in business relationships, it is unacceptable that many workers still operate without clear, written terms of employment or struggle to understand complex legal documents that govern their working lives. While legislative reform requiring written contracts and plain language cannot solve all workplace challenges, it would represent a significant step toward fairer, more transparent employment relationships.
The path to reform is clear. South Africa needs to modernise its approach to employment contracts through legislative amendments that mandate written contracts and plain language requirements. These changes would give workers better tools to understand and assert their rights while providing employers with clearer frameworks for managing their workforce. The time has come to create a more equitable workplace for all South Africans through these crucial legislative reforms.
