Most labour disputes don't come from bad faith, but from a contract drafted in a hurry. These are the clauses we most often find missing when reviewing existing contracts.
When we review an existing business's contracts, we rarely find one that's deliberately non-compliant. More often it's a contract copied from an old template and never updated with amendments to the Labour Law. These are the five clauses we most often find missing or imprecise.
First: stating the basic wage clearly and separating it from allowances. Many contracts state a lump sum with no breakdown. The problem is that end-of-service benefits and leave allowance are calculated on the basic wage, and the absence of a breakdown opens the door to dispute at termination.
Second: the contract's type and term. Is it fixed-term or indefinite? Leaving this vague hands the contract's classification to the competent authority's judgement in a dispute, and that classification may not favour you.
Third: a precise job description. The occupation in the contract must match the one on the work permit and with GOSI. Mismatches cause problems at renewal and transfer, and sometimes violations.
Fourth: the probation clause. It has a statutory maximum and conditions for how it's counted, and it isn't implied — if it isn't stated explicitly in the contract, it doesn't exist.
Fifth: place of work and the mechanism for assigning another. If your activity requires employees to move between sites or cities, having this clause prevents a later objection to relocation.
The practical recommendation: review your existing contracts in one batch rather than waiting for the first dispute. A review taking a few days is far cheaper than a labour case or a fine, and far easier to carry out while relations are normal rather than adversarial.
Have a question about your specific case? Book a consultation and we'll map the path.
Contact us