Legal obligation to perform individual employment contracts in Romanian (a bilingual format, including a Romanian version, is also possible). It is not a legal obligation for internal rules or guidelines to be in Romanian, but this is highly recommended. No legal requirements, but all documents should be in Russian (or bilingual) so that they can be presented to the Russian authorities without translation, if necessary. In Spain, for example, an employment contract should not be concluded in Spanish. However, copies of employment contracts must be submitted to the Spanish government`s employment services. It is therefore useful, from a practical point of view, to translate the English employment contract into Spanish. Arabic is the dominant language in the KSA, although a contract can be concluded with another language. In the KSA, it is customary to write a bilingual contract with Arabic and English texts in a document. In the event of a labour dispute, all procedures are conducted in Arabic and all documents, including the employment contract, must be filed in Arabic. Even if the parties say something else, the Arabic text will always prevail. No legal rules. The practice is to have all the official documents in English.
However, the law requires illiterate workers to have the provisions of their employment contracts explained in a language they understand. As a general rule, there are no legal language requirements and employment contracts can be offered in any language, provided the worker understands the language of the contract. However, specific rules apply to stock options. In this case, the legislation requires that Danish-language workers have the essential conditions of an action option system. No legal requirements, and employees are often open to agreements or guidelines in English. However, it is advisable to design the employment contract in Portuguese (or to adopt a bilingual proposal), as the courts need a Portuguese version or an official translation in the event of a dispute. The employees also alleged that Goode Concrete violated their obligations under the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act of 2005 by failing to disclose the company`s safety statement in a manner, form and language that they could understand.