Hundreds of contractors in the Western Cape have been found flouting occupational health and safety, labour and other regulatory requirements this year, raising concerns about weak oversight, undocumented workers and repeat offenders in the construction sector.
The Western Cape construction industry is facing growing scrutiny over regulatory non-compliance, with 891 contractors found to be non-compliant since the beginning of the year, according to the department of employment and labour.
The department said 543 contravention notices and 348 compliance orders had been issued, while 121 contractors had been referred for prosecution.
Department spokesperson Teboho Thejane said the violations included 543 occupational health and safety contraventions, 85 breaches of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA), 178 involving the Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF) and 85 related to the Compensation Fund.
The figures come amid broader concerns about accountability in an industry where projects involve multiple layers of contractors and subcontractors, making it difficult to establish who is ultimately responsible for workers, safety and compliance on construction sites.
In May, the government blacklisted 52 construction companies for poor performance, fraud and contractual failures. Two months back, a multidisciplinary compliance at a major construction site on Lower Long Street in the CBD uncovered 79 undocumented foreigners working on the project.
The Building Industry Bargaining Council (BIBC) said the cases highlighted what it described as a deeper, systemic culture of non-compliance in South Africa’s construction sector.
BIBC spokesperson Danie Hattingh said many contractors had been barred from operating until 2029 for offences including falsifying B-BBEE certificates and invoicing for work that had not been completed.
But, he said, these offences were symptoms of a wider problem rather than the root cause.
“What we are seeing is a pattern where non-compliance in one area is almost always mirrored across others. It is rarely isolated to non-compliance with the BIBC only,” Hattingh said.
The implications extend beyond administrative breaches, with poor compliance potentially contributing to substandard work, project delays, site failures and safety risks.
The BIBC said non-compliant contractors could also gain an unfair competitive advantage by exploiting labour and cutting costs in ways that compliant businesses cannot.
The problem is compounded by the ability of some repeat offenders to re-enter the industry under new entities.
The trend towards ‘fronting’ companies is widespread and complex. Even if a new entity has no record of non-compliance, it can still be the same operators, making it difficult for clients and procurement officials to know who they’re really dealing with.
— Danie Hattingh, BIBC spokesperson
Hattingh said contractors sometimes deregister, change the name of their businesses or establish new entities using associates or family members as directors, making it difficult for clients and procurement officials to establish who they are really dealing with.
“The trend towards ‘fronting’ companies is widespread and complex,” he said. “Even if a new entity has no record of non-compliance, it can still be the same operators, making it difficult for clients and procurement officials to know who they’re really dealing with.”
The problem is particularly acute in high-volume public procurement, where the sheer number of contractors and projects makes monitoring difficult.
This can allow problematic contractors to reappear under new identities, perpetuating a cycle of poor delivery and regulatory breaches.
Hattingh said non-compliance with the BIBC often served as an early warning sign of broader labour violations.
“To avoid levies, contractors keep workers off the books,” he said.
This can have a domino effect, resulting in workers not being registered for UIF, PAYE or the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (Coida), while also limiting access to structured training and safety programmes.
Workers can consequently be placed on sites without proper induction, personal protective equipment or skills verification, while health and safety files may be generic rather than tailored to the specific site.
Another factor, according to the BIBC, is the industry’s shift away from the traditional master-builder model towards increasingly layered contracting arrangements involving subcontractors and labour brokers.
While responsibility may be delegated contractually, Hattingh said legal accountability remained.
The BIBC said its primary objective was to assist employers in achieving and maintaining compliance, protecting jobs and supporting a sustainable building industry.
For this reason, it does not comment on specific employers or individual enforcement matters while compliance and engagement processes are ongoing.
The Western Cape department of infrastructure said contractors appointed to undertake work for the department must meet a range of mandatory registration, compliance and qualification requirements.
Department spokesperson Stephen Heyns said contractors must be registered on National Treasury’s Central Supplier Database (CSD), the provincial treasury’s Western Cape Supplier Evidence Bank (WCSEB) and the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) Register of Contractors.
“Contractors are also checked against the National Treasury Register of Tender Defaulters and the List of Restricted Suppliers to determine whether they are prohibited or restricted from doing business with government,” he said.
Heyns said contractors were required to remain compliant with occupational health and safety requirements throughout the duration of their contracts.
“These requirements provide assurance that contractors appointed by the department are appropriately registered, suitably qualified, financially and legally compliant, and capable of undertaking the applicable class of works in accordance with the applicable legislative, contractual and safety requirements,” he said.
Where domestic subcontracting arrangements apply, the main contractor is responsible for appointing and managing the subcontractor in accordance with the contract.
Heyns said this meant that if a contractor or subcontractor employed undocumented workers, the main contractor assumed the associated contractual, legal and operational risks.
This could include penalties, enforcement action, claims, delays, costs and other consequences arising from breaches of legislation.
“The department does not assume responsibility for the contractor’s employment practices or the compliance of its subcontractors with immigration, labour and other applicable legal requirements,” he said.
The concerns come against the backdrop of fatal building failures, including the George and Ormonde collapses, which have raised questions about construction oversight and accountability.
While the causes of individual incidents differ, the BIBC said weak oversight, fragmented accountability and limited visibility over who is working on construction sites remained persistent risks.
The Western Cape’s growing number of compliance interventions suggests the scale of the challenge remains significant.
Yoliswa Sobuwa
www.sundaytimes.timeslive.co.za