Internal Work Regulations in Saudi Arabia: Why Bespoke, Attested Violations Matter for Employers

4 min 16 sec January 15, 2026 (Edited)

The Internal Work Regulations (لائحة تنظيم العمل) (IWRs) serve as the cornerstone of workplace governance in Saudi Arabia. They define the rights and obligations of employees, regulate workplace conduct, and provide the disciplinary structure through which employers maintain order and compliance. The regulations are mandatory for all private sector employers, and many companies continue to adopt the default template issued by the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Development (MHRSD) without tailoring it to the nature and needs of their business. As the labour environment in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) becomes increasingly complex and regulated, this approach is no longer sufficient for employers seeking robust governance, clarity, and protection.

Every private sector employer must attest its IWRs through the online Qiwa platform. While attesting the standard form fulfils the minimum legal requirement, it also means that the employer adopts the same generic rules and disciplinary framework used by every other business in the KSA. This includes the basic structure, default disciplinary measures, and standardised table of violations and penalties. For some employers this may be adequate, but for many, particularly those operating in dynamic sectors or facing unique operational risks, it represents a missed opportunity to introduce bespoke protections that reflect their actual working environment.

Practical considerations

Many employers, irrespective of their industry, face operational, cultural, and technical challenges that far exceed the scope of the standard template. For example, a technology company must address information security, system access, and cybersecurity protocols. A logistics operator requires clear rules on asset handling, warehouse safety, and chain-of-custody processes. A hospitality business must regulate guest interactions, hygiene, service standards, and incident reporting. A construction company depends on tailored requirements relating to site safety, equipment use, and coordination with contractors. Even within the same sector, workplace realities differ significantly between entities.

A particularly common issue among both international and local employers is the application of internal policies and procedures, particularly in light of the need to register their IWRs. Many entities, especially those operating across multiple jurisdictions, seek to apply a unified global policy framework to ensure consistency and governance across their business. Local entities often pursue the same objective by embedding internal rules on ethics, conduct, confidentiality, IT usage, safety procedures, customer interactions, and operational protocols.

In practice, however, employers frequently struggle to hold employees accountable for breaches of internal policies when those breaches are not explicitly included in the disciplinary table of violations (جدول المخالفات والعقوبات) attested by the MHRSD. Without bespoke, attested violations covering these policy breaches, employers may find themselves unable to impose disciplinary action with confidence, or forced to rely on general misconduct provisions that may later be challenged before the Labour Court. When such bespoke violations are expressly included and attested, the employer gains a clear, enforceable legal basis to act.

Tailoring the IWRs to business needs

The standard form of the IWRs establish a foundation for workplace discipline that would be applicable across multiple sectors, but they do not provide for specific provisions and violations that may be applicable in certain sectors. Employers often discover, usually after a breach has occurred, that certain behaviours, risks, or forms of negligence that may be common in their business are not addressed in their IWRs at all. This not only limits the employer’s ability to act decisively but also exposes the business to legal disputes, inconsistent practices, and uncertainty when handling employee issues.

By drafting and attesting additional bespoke violations and penalties, the employer transforms its IWRs into a tailored governance instrument rather than a basic compliance document. Once attested by the MHRSD, these provisions obtain formal legal standing and can be relied upon when issuing disciplinary measures, responding to employee complaints, or defending claims before the Labour Court. They demonstrate that the employer has proactively aligned its disciplinary structure with its operations, without exceeding what the Labour Law permits.

Clarity and enforceability also benefit employees. Tailored, attested regulations give workers a transparent understanding of expectations, promote fairness, and reduce ambiguity. They support a consistent approach to discipline across the organisation, ensuring that employees know the rules governing their conduct and the consequences of breaching them. This fosters transparent employee relations, reduces disputes, and strengthens internal governance.

Some employers hesitate to tailor their regulations, believing that registration is a formality or assuming that the standard form is sufficient. Given that the attestation process is a legal requirement, employers must consider whether they treat their IWRs as a minimal compliance exercise or as an opportunity to strengthen governance. An increasing number of employers are choosing to tailor their IWRs to their business, knowing that bespoke, attested provisions provide more relevant options for managing their operations in accordance with their needs.

Amending the standard form of IWRs is not limited to large enterprises or highly regulated sectors. Small and medium-sized businesses also benefit significantly from tailored approaches to violations, as they often face frequent and direct operational challenges that generic regulations may not adequately address. Whether the risks relate to cash handling, customer interactions, inventory control, confidentiality, or safety, the principle is the same: clear, attested rules mitigate the risk of disputes and empower employers to act with confidence.