MBA Boland Bi-Monthly Newsletter- August 2025

MBA Boland Monthly Newsletter- August 2025

A Fresh Way to Connect and Share

Dear Members,

We are thrilled to announce the launch of our association’s brand-new newsletter. This vibrant platform will be designed to keep our members informed, inspired, and connected. Published every two months, the newsletter will feature updates, stories, and highlights that affect and matter to all of us.

This is your newsletter, and we warmly invite you to be a part of its creation. Have an article, photo, or story you’d like to share? Do you know of an upcoming event or a member’s achievement worth celebrating? We encourage you to submit articles, photos, or any content you believe would spark interest and foster engagement among fellow members.

Let’s work together to make this newsletter a true reflection of our dynamic and diverse association. We look forward to your contributions and to building something memorable together.

Warm regards

Daniel Uys
Director : MBA

Health And Safety Related Matters

MBA Boland health and safety team: (f.l.t.r) Gihaino Carelse, Imeraan Anter, Nadia America, Sunil Moonsamy

MBA Boland continues to provide high-quality health and safety services to the construction sector, with 98% of all sites serviced during 2025 being FEM-registered. The second quarter reflected sustained momentum, supported by a growing construction industry in the Boland region driven by infrastructure development, urbanisation, and investment.

Key Statistics for April – June 2025:

Site Visits:

194 total site visits were conducted
319 of 345 visits for the year were to FEM member sites

Health & Safety Files:

48 files compiled during the second quarter
105 FEM-related files completed in 2025 so far

Training:

37 training sessions conducted
292 people trained
33 of the attendees were FEM policyholders
General Safety Induction was the most popular course with 28 sessions and 264 participants

Medicals:

240 employees assisted, all from FEM member companies

Incident Investigations:

0 incidents investigated in Q2
2 incidents for the year to date (scaffolding collapse and car accident, no fatalities reported)

Mentorship Programme:
13 small and emerging contractors are actively participating in the mentorship programme, aimed at upskilling SMMEs working on members’ sites. One mentee, Maletswai Construction, was awarded FEM’s “Most Improved Mentee” award in 2024.

Challenges and Developments:
The surge in demand for full-time health and safety officers on construction sites remains a challenge. MBA Boland is currently recruiting a junior health and safety officer through its internship programme to strengthen its capacity.

Outlook:
MBA Boland’s membership stands at 304, with ongoing recruitment drives expected to boost this number. The organisation is focused on expanding training, offering mentorship, and maintaining compliance with legislative changes. With FEM’s continued support, MBA Boland remains committed to enhancing workplace safety and fostering a resilient construction industry in the Boland region.

Labour related matters

Employing Foreign Nationals in South Africa: A Practical Legal Guide for Employers

Hiring foreign nationals in South Africa comes with a unique set of legal responsibilities. While access to global talent can be a valuable asset, employers must navigate both immigration and labour laws carefully. It’s essential to ensure that all foreign workers have the proper authorisation to work, are treated fairly in line with South African labour legislation, and that appropriate documentation is maintained. Regularly reviewing relevant laws and consulting professionals is strongly recommended, as legislation and enforcement approaches can change over time. Being proactive in this regard helps ensure compliance and supports a fair, well-functioning workplace.

1. The Department of Labour and Employment’s Position on Foreign Workers

South Africa’s Department of Labour and Employment takes a structured, rules-based approach to the employment of foreign nationals. The aim is to uphold labour standards, protect the local workforce, and ensure employers are compliant with relevant legislation.

Core Requirements for Employers:

Valid Work Authorisation
Employers are required to ensure that every foreign national they hire has a valid work visa or permit. These documents must be checked for authenticity and relevance before any offer of employment is made.
Equal Treatment Under Labour Law
Foreign employees must be treated in line with South African labour laws. This includes fair pay, safe working conditions, and protection against discrimination.
Employment Equity Considerations
While employment equity policies prioritise the hiring of South African citizens, employing foreign nationals may be justified in instances where certain skills are scarce locally.
Accurate Record-Keeping
Employers must maintain detailed records related to the employment of foreign nationals. This includes copies of visas, employment contracts, and documentation proving legal compliance.
Ongoing Monitoring and Audits
The Department carries out inspections to identify employers who may be hiring undocumented workers or breaching labour laws.
Access to Advice and Guidance
Employers are encouraged to approach the Department or relevant professionals for guidance on immigration or labour law concerns involving foreign employees.

Recent Developments and Enforcement Efforts

In recent years, enforcement has been stepped up. Employers should take note of the following actions being undertaken by authorities:

More frequent workplace inspections and unannounced visits
Greater coordination between the Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Labour and Employment to verify work permits
Public awareness campaigns highlighting the importance of legal work status
Heavy penalties and even criminal charges for employers found hiring undocumented foreign nationals

Working with Refugees and Asylum Seekers

Employers may employ individuals who have recognised refugee or asylum seeker status, provided they adhere to the conditions of their documentation. It remains the employer’s responsibility to confirm the validity and terms of these documents before employment.

2. Legal Considerations Before Employing Foreign Nationals

Employing foreign nationals can add significant value to a business. However, strict legal compliance is critical. Below is an overview of the key legal areas that employers must understand and comply with before hiring a foreign national.

1. Immigration Requirements

1.1 Immigration Act, 2002 (as amended)
The Immigration Act sets out the rules for entry, residence, and employment of foreign nationals in South Africa. It specifies the various types of work visas and their conditions.

1.2 Types of Work Visas Commonly Used

General Work Visa – Issued when no qualified South African is available for the role. Employers must demonstrate this with a full recruitment record.
Critical Skills Visa – Granted to those whose skills appear on the Critical Skills List published by the Department of Home Affairs.
Intra-Company Transfer Visa – For staff transferred from an overseas office to a South African branch of the same organisation.
Corporate Visa – Issued to companies for the employment of a specific number of foreign workers in defined roles and timeframes.

Employers must ensure the visa is valid, unexpired, and appropriate for the role offered.

1.3 Zero Tolerance for Non-Compliance
It is illegal to employ a foreign national without a valid visa. Doing so can lead to fines, criminal prosecution, or even business closure.

2. Labour Laws and Employee Protections

2.1 Labour Relations Act (1995)
This legislation guarantees all employees, regardless of nationality, the right to fair labour practices and representation.

2.2 Basic Conditions of Employment Act (1997)
Foreign nationals are entitled to the same terms regarding working hours, leave, wages, and notice periods.

2.3 Employment Equity Act (1998)
Employers must apply fair and non-discriminatory hiring practices, including with respect to nationality. In sectors under transformation pressure, employers may need to justify the hiring of a foreign national over a South African.

2.4 Building Industry Bargaining Council (BIBC)(Cape of Good Hope) Collective Agreement
The BIBC Collective Agreement is designed to standardize employment terms, conditions, and workplace practices across the industry, ensuring consistency, fairness, and stability for all parties involved

3. Recruitment and Proof of Labour Market Search

3.1 Advertising the Role
For General Work Visas, employers must show that they have attempted to recruit a South African by advertising the job, typically in national newspapers.

3.2 Documenting the Process
Employers should keep records of:

Job advertisements
Applications received
Interview records and reasons for rejecting local applicants
A clear motivation for hiring a foreign candidate

4. Qualifications and Skills Verification

4.1 Evaluation by SAQA
Foreign qualifications must be assessed and verified by the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) to ensure they meet local standards.

4.2 Skills Must Match Visa Category
For Critical Skills Visas, both the role and the candidate’s qualifications must align with the Department of Home Affairs’ current Critical Skills List.

5. Employer Obligations and Record Management

5.1 Immigration Status Checks
Employers must keep current records of work permit details, expiry dates, and any visa conditions.

5.2 Termination Reporting
If the foreign employee leaves the company, the Department of Home Affairs must be notified within the required timeframe.

5.3 Employment Contracts
All contracts should clearly state that continued employment is dependent on valid work authorisation. They must comply with South African labour law.

6. Fair Treatment and Workplace Rights

Foreign nationals are entitled to the same protections as South African workers, including:

Fair dismissal procedures
Protection from discrimination or harassment
Access to health and safety measures
Participation in grievance procedures

7. Consequences of Non-Compliance

Employers who do not comply with immigration and labour laws may face:

Significant fines
Criminal charges
Potential imprisonment
Revocation of rights to employ foreign workers
Reputational harm and possible loss of business licences

Inspections by the Department of Home Affairs are common and may be conducted with little warning.

8. Industry-Specific Requirements and Additional Obligations

8.1 Quotas and Industry Rules
Certain sectors, such as agriculture or mining, may be subject to quotas or unique rules for hiring foreign nationals.

8.2 Skills Transfer and Succession Plans
Some visa types require employers to implement structured plans to transfer knowledge to local employees.

8.3 Union Rights
Foreign workers have the right to join unions and participate in collective bargaining.

8.4 Refugees and Asylum Seekers
These individuals may be eligible to work if their permits allow it. Employers must verify the terms and duration of their work rights.

9. Practical Tips for Employers

To stay compliant, employers should:

Keep up to date with immigration and labour law changes
Verify work permits before offering employment
Maintain detailed records of recruitment, qualifications, and visa status
Ensure employment contracts meet legal standards
Train HR and line managers on these requirements
Seek legal or immigration advice when needed

Final Thoughts

Employing foreign nationals in South Africa can be a strategic advantage, but it comes with strict legal duties. By understanding and following immigration and labour laws, employers not only protect their business from penalties but also contribute to a fair and inclusive working environment. Proper processes, fair treatment, and accurate record-keeping are essential foundations for success.

Legal matters

Article submitted by: Theunis Van Zyl

Time-barring and the enforcement thereof on Contractors and Subcontractors

Time-barring of notices and claims remain a contentious issue especially where the party providing the work or the services relied on the other party’s indulgence that “we are not going to throw the contract at each other, and we are here to successfully deliver the project together”. Unfortunately, when it comes to financial implications and the financial implications of extension of time claims or expense and loss claims, whether it is the Contractor claiming against the Employer, or the Subcontractor against the Contractor, the letter of the written contract and its time-barring provisions becomes the proverbial shield behind which the party liable for such a claim may hide. I have heard many claimants complaining about that time-barring is unfairness or unconstitutional, but this has been resolved in the Barkhuizen v Napier matter in 2007.

Summary of the Judgement:

The recent Judgment delivered on 8 June 2021 by the Honourable AJ Mossop in the application brought by the MEC for the Department of Transport, Kwazulu-Natal against Raubex (KZN) and the learned Adjudicator, considered the implication of the “time limitation” clause when a Referral to Arbitration may be made after an Adjudicator delivered a Decision. This Judgment also provided an insight on how a Court will consider the imposition of a time-bar clause.

Although the dispute between Raubex and the Department of Transport, Kwazulu-Natal arose in accordance with the General Conditions of Contract for Construction Works, Third Edition, 2015 (“GCC 2015”), after the delivery of the Adjudicator’s Decision, the principles established in this Judgment will similarly apply to the provisions of the JBCC, NEC and FIDIC conditions of contract.

On 24 March 2020 the learned Adjudicator’s Decision was received by the Parties. Upon receipt of a Decision, Clause 10.6.1.2 of the GCC 2015 provides that none of the Parties shall “dispute the validity, or correctness of the whole, or specified part of the decision, before 28 days1 or after 56 days from the receipt of the decision“. GCC 2015 therefore effectively allows for a “cooling-off” period for the dissatisfied party to carefully consider whether it is worth the effort and the resources to refer the matter to Arbitration. Clause 10.6.1.2 of the GCC 2015 then also provides that if a disputing party does not comply with the time limitation and misses the deadline of 56 days, the disputing party “shall have no further right to refer such a dispute to arbitration or court proceedings”.

Similarly, Clause 30.6.4 of the JBCC Principal Building Agreement (Edition 6.2, May 2018) provides a time-limitation of only 10 working days in which a dissatisfied party may dispute the Adjudicator’s Decision and refer a matter to Arbitration. Clause W1.4 (2) of the NEC3 and NEC4 provides a time-limitation of 4 weeks and the FIDIC Red Book (1999) provides a time-limitation of 28 days in which a dissatisfied party may dispute the Adjudicator’s Decision.

As per the Judgment, the period in which the Applicant had an opportunity to dispute the Adjudicator’s Decision was from 23 April 2020 to 22 May 2020. The Applicant only issued the notice on 12 August 2020. In terms of Clause 10.6.1.2 of the GCC 2015 the Applicant was effectively barred from further disputing the Adjudicator’s Decision and referring the dispute to Arbitration. To overcome this obstacle, the Applicant sought an order from the Court that enforcement of the time-limitation clause must be declared contra bonos mores. The Applicant also contended that to enforce the time-limitation clause would be unfair to it.

The Applicant’s reasons for the belated notice of dispute were primarily that the Applicant appointed an attorney to represent it in the dispute before the Adjudicator. The attorney was a Mr Mkhulise (Mr Mkhulise) of the firm Mkhulise Attorneys. On Friday, 20 March 2020, four days before the Adjudicator delivered his decision, Mr. Mkhulise was tragically murdered. Following upon this, the Applicant was unable to get any information from Mr Mkhulise’s files from his office as he was a sole practitioner and his office was in ‘disarray’ following his death. It was also unable to receive legal advice concerning the decision. Attempts to appoint a successor to Mr Mkhulise were further hampered when the applicant approached its present attorneys and was told that they could not act until all outstanding amounts owing to Mr Mkhulise’s firm had been paid. The level 5 lockdown due to the Covid-19 pandemic also played an integral part in the Applicant’s delay in notifying the dispute. The applicant contended that the interplay of these two principal factors caused it difficulty in complying with the provisions of the time-limitation clause.

As per Barkhuizen v Napier 2007 (5) SA 323, the following was clarified:

“…where a claimant seeks to avoid the enforcement of a time-limitation clause on the basis that non-compliance with it was caused by factors beyond his or her control, it is inconceivable that a court would hold the claimant to such a clause.”

Although the Honourable Judge stated that “death is notoriously a great disruptor, and the imposition of a national lock down is unprecedented in the modern history of this country”, the Honourable Judge found that the essential question to be determined thus was whether compliance with the time-limitation clause was prohibited by factors beyond the control of the applicant and that the conduct of the Applicant’s employees must still be scrutinised notwithstanding the occurrence of the two factors relied upon by the Applicant. The Honourable Judge concluded, upon scrutiny of the actions and/or inactions of the Applicant’s employees that “the mere existence of the murder and the lockdown appears to be used by Ms Sithole as a cloak that is drawn down upon her activities to obscure them from view” and “whilst the lockdown was enormously disruptive, economic life had to continue even if it was conducted from one’s dining room table.”

The Honourable Judge then concluded that “insufficient reasons have been advanced in support of the allegation that the applicant could not have complied with the provisions of the time-limitation clause”, that “the Applicant’s founding papers, in which it is required to make its case, is characterised by an absence of facts” and “there is simply no evidence to satisfactorily explain why the applicant could not have complied with the time-limitation clause.”

The Honourable Judge further summarized that right thinking members of the community would require organs of state such as the Applicant to be diligent and vigilant in the performance of their contractual obligations and that those entrusted with the legal work of the Applicant were required to conduct themselves in a professional manner and to use their best endeavours to protect the interests of their employer.

Conclusion:

The Judgment by the Honourable AJ Mossop confirmed that whether something is immoral or not is a question of fact and that sufficient facts must be advanced if a declaration is sought that the enforcement of the time-limitation clause is contra bonos mores or contrary to public policy. A court, however, may not refuse to enforce contractual terms on the basis that the enforcement would, in its subjective view, be unfair, unreasonable or unduly harsh. If sufficient reasons have been advanced by the disputing party to prove it was prohibited by factors beyond its control, then the outcome may have been different. The mere occurrence of the circumstances did not suffice as such good reasons to not comply with the time-limitation clause of the contract.

A disputing party should therefore carefully observe and strictly comply with time-limitation provisions of the contract, unless the occurrence of circumstances (which circumstances will have to survive an objective test), prevent a contracting party from complying with these provisions. Therefore, if a contract provides for time-barring on notices and claims, contractors and subcontractors should comply with the notice and claim provisions of the contract as it is almost impossible to navigate out of a time-bar when considering the recent Judgment in Raubex vs the Department of Transport, Kwazulu-Natal.

Current affairs in the construction environment

Article submitted by: Danie Hattingh, Principle officer BIBC pension fund

Bargaining Councils Can Play a Meaningful role in Combatting Construction Mafia Disruptions

South Africa’s construction sector is being systematically undermined by criminal syndicates. Commonly referred to as the “construction mafia,” these groups extort, intimidate, and sabotage construction projects across the country. Their actions not only threaten worker safety but also stall critical infrastructure development, increase costs, and damage investor confidence.

According to Deputy Minister of Public Works Sihle Zikalala, disruptions caused by so-called “construction mafia” groups have cost South Africa an estimated R63 billion between 2019 and 2024. In the Western Cape alone, six major construction projects, collectively worth over R400 million, were halted last year due to the actions of criminal syndicates.

“These criminal networks are not simply disruptive, they’re deeply embedded in some areas and operate with increasing sophistication,” says Danie Hattingh, spokesperson for business at the Building Industry Bargaining Council (BIBC). “But through collaboration and responsible oversight, bargaining councils can help identify and isolate illegitimate players posing as contractors or community representatives.”

The “construction mafia” initially emerged around 2015, often misrepresented as attempts at economic transformation. Exploiting clauses in procurement policy, particularly the requirement that 30% of public contracts benefit local communities, these groups claimed to represent local interests.

“What began as calls for inclusion quickly devolved into extortion and violence,” says Hattingh. “We have seen armed site invasions, demands for ‘protection fees,’ sabotage of equipment, and even threats to life. These are not empowerment activists. These are criminal syndicates exploiting legitimate policies for personal gain.”

The impact has been severe. Forced stoppages and heightened security requirements have led to significant project delays and cost overruns. Investor and contractor confidence has declined, especially among smaller firms and international stakeholders. Job losses and slower infrastructure delivery have negatively affected both the economy and local communities. Skilled professionals are leaving high-risk areas, resulting in a loss of expertise and capacity. Critical projects such as schools, housing, and hospitals face mounting delays and ballooning budgets. Perhaps most concerning is the growing sense of fear and insecurity among workers and contractors on the ground.

Contractors, workers, and even government officials have reported intimidation, assaults, and in some cases, killings. Armed gangs have stormed construction sites demanding a cut of the project (usually 30%, under the false interpretation of local empowerment policies).

Syndicates thrive in an environment of weak enforcement, vague regulation, and fragmented oversight. Labour laws are inconsistently enforced, and under-resourced inspectors struggle to monitor all sites. Procurement frameworks lack clarity, enabling unvetted individuals to claim community representation. Smaller contractors often operate informally and without legal support, making them particularly vulnerable.

“The construction mafia exploits every gap,” says Hattingh. “They scare and threaten without facing any punishment or consequences, manipulate the tender process, and operate freely due to legal delays and poor coordination between stakeholders.”

Despite these challenges, the BIBC believes that working with organisations like Business Against Crime South Africa (BAC) and dedicated SAPS anti-extortion task teams, can help to turn the tide by playing a key role in identifying fraudulent activity within its jurisdiction.

“We actively track contractor activity through our Employee Benefit Administration system,” explains Hattingh. “If someone linked to corrupt activity attempts to bribe one of our agents or issues threats, we escalate the case immediately to SAPS and BAC.”

The BIBC also engages with international organisations like the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime (GI-TOC) to stay informed about trends and emerging threats. This level of insight allows the BIBC to support coordinated action and encourage legitimate contractors to stand firm against criminal interference.

“We’re no longer in a position where contractors feel totally alone,” says Hattingh. “Our partnerships give them a structured avenue to report incidents and push back with the support of the law.”

Although the threat remains significant, there are signs of progress. “Yes, we still need to convince more businesses to break their silence,” Hattingh admits. “But there’s momentum now. We see greater willingness to collaborate and a shared recognition that this issue cannot be ignored.”

The BIBC advocates for several practical interventions:

Regional threat-tracking systems to improve early warning and response.
Mandatory anti-extortion clauses in all subcontract agreements.
Rapid response task teams, co-ordinated with SAPS and municipal governments.
Legal toolkits and education programmes for small and mid-sized contractors.
Stronger oversight of local business forums to distinguish legitimate voices from criminal fronts.

Ultimately, Hattingh believes that long-term success will come when only registered, law-abiding contractors are permitted to operate. Bargaining councils, with their established infrastructure and employer networks, are ideally placed to enforce this.

“If you want to do business in the Greater Peninsula, Boland, or Overstrand regions, you need to be registered with the BIBC,” says Hattingh. “That gives us a direct line of accountability, and it gives the industry a filter to help keep criminals out.”

To other industries facing similar threats, the message is clear: unite, formalise, and act.

“The construction mafia thrives on fear and fragmentation,” Hatting concludes. “But with unified action, clear policies, and robust oversight, the industry can push back. Bargaining councils are critical allies in restoring integrity and ensuring that economic empowerment is genuine and not hijacked by criminals.”

About the Building Industry Bargaining Council (BIBC)

Established by employer organisations and trade unions in the Western Cape’s building industry, the Building Industry Bargaining Council (BIBC) serves as a collaborative platform where both parties negotiate terms and conditions of employment through collective bargaining. Current members include the Master Builders Association Western Cape (MBA WC); MBA Boland; Consolidated Employers Organisation (CEO); Building, Wood

News articles published

Training and development

Article submitted by: Markus Nortier

Navigating the Changes: SANS 10085-1:2024 and the Challenges Ahead for South African Contractors

The South African scaffolding industry has entered a new era with the release of SANS 10085-1:2024, replacing the long-standing 2004 edition. This revised standard brings significant changes, particularly in documentation, accountability, and safety expectations for all involved in the erection, use, and dismantling of access scaffolding.

While these updates aim to enhance safety and bring local standards in line with international best practices, they also introduce new administrative and operational burdens, especially for smaller contractors who may lack the infrastructure, staffing, or in-house engineering support to immediately comply.

Why the Change?

SANS 10085-1:2004 served the industry well for two decades, but scaffolding technology, safety management, and construction methodologies have evolved. The new 2024 edition was introduced to:

Clarify design and documentation requirements,
Close previous gaps in accountability,
Enhance risk-based planning,
Improve consistency with global standards (such as EN and ISO frameworks).

These improvements aim to reduce incidents and raise the bar for professional scaffold management, but adapting to them will require realignment in how scaffolding is planned, documented, and controlled.

Key Differences Between SANS 10085-1:2004 and 2024

Design Requirements Clarified and Expanded

In the 2004 version, general design principles were outlined but left significant room for interpretation. The 2024 edition now clearly separates basic design and special design scaffolding.

Basic Design: Required for all scaffolds 2 metres or higher. It can be based on pre-engineered system scaffolding specifications or generic designs that comply with the standard’s parameters.
Special Design: Now mandated where scaffolds fall outside the standard’s specifications, for example, unusually high scaffolds, cantilevered structures, hanging scaffolds, or those with heavy loads. These must be engineer-designed and signed off.

This represents a substantial change — previously, some contractors would proceed with system-based or in-house designs without formal engineering inputs. The new standard formalises when and where a professional engineer must be involved.

Stricter Documentation and Handover Requirements

The paper trail has become non-negotiable under SANS 10085-1:2024.

Every scaffold over 2m must have:
- A design (basic or special),
- A scaffold handover certificate, signed by a competent person,
- A scaffold register, kept up to date with inspections and changes,
- A fall protection plan if work at height is involved.
Additional documents may include:
- Erection crew competency certificates,
- Engineering drawings (for special designs),
- Risk assessments and method statements.

This puts pressure on contractors to not only build safe scaffolds but to prove compliance through organised, accessible documentation.

Competency and Accountability

Competency has always been a requirement, but the 2024 revision tightens expectations:

Scaffold erectors, supervisors, inspectors, and designers must all be trained and competent, with evidence of their qualifications and experience.
A competent person must sign off the scaffold before use and carry the responsibility for its safety.
Designers (especially for special designs) must be clearly identified and appropriately qualified.

This introduces a higher level of personal accountability, particularly for site supervisors and appointed scaffold inspectors.

Bracing, Ties, and Stability Enhancements

The 2024 version offers more detail on physical scaffold configuration:

Bracing intervals, tie spacing, and base preparation are now more clearly defined.
Wind loading, soil conditions, and foundation suitability must be considered during planning and erection — even for small access scaffolds.
Free-standing scaffolds and structures over certain heights now require more comprehensive stability calculations.

This may seem technical, but it has practical implications, including the need for site-specific planning rather than relying on standardised setups.

The Challenge for Small and Medium Contractors

For large contractors with in-house safety officers, engineers, and administrative systems, the transition to SANS 10085-1:2024 is manageable, though still demanding.

However, smaller contractors face several difficulties:

Cost of engaging engineers for special designs,
Time and skill needed to manage scaffold registers and documentation,
Training costs for upskilling staff to required competency levels,
Delays in handovers due to stricter inspection processes.

The new standard demands a shift from informal practices to formalised processes, with little room for error or verbal agreements. For companies that previously relied on system scaffolds and experienced teams without deep paperwork, this represents a major administrative change.

Practical Next Steps

To align with SANS 10085-1:2024, contractors should:

Review their existing scaffold procedures against the new standard.
Invest in basic design templates or pre-approved system scaffold layouts.
Build relationships with engineering professionals for special designs.
Ensure all scaffolders and supervisors are trained and certified.
Implement digital or manual scaffold registers for all jobs.
Educate clients on realistic timelines for scaffold erection, handover, and inspection.

Conclusion

SANS 10085-1:2024 represents a necessary and progressive update to scaffolding practices in South Africa. While the new standard will improve safety and reduce risk, it presents logistical, financial, and compliance challenges — particularly for small and medium contractors who must now operate with higher levels of administrative rigour.

At Phine Academy, we’re working with contractors across the country to help interpret the new requirements, offer scaffold-specific training, and develop templates to ease the documentation burden. With the right support and understanding, adapting to this standard is achievable — but it will require a mindset shift across the industry.

Disclaimer: This article reflects my interpretation of SANS 10085-1:2024 based on practical industry experience and current training content. Readers are encouraged to consult the full standard and relevant professionals for legal or engineering advice.

Home