The workplace has evolved dramatically in the past decades. Technology has improved, innovative ways of utilising nuclear power have been developed, new chemicals have been introduced to the market and the adverse effects of other chemicals on both human health and safety and the environment have been discovered. This has influenced the nature of the workplace itself. While employees enjoy a common law right to a safe working environment and health and safety, state intervention currently provides restricted claims to an employee who has sustained injuries or contracted occupational diseases. This thesis explores the effect of section 35 of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993 which deprives an employee of its common law right to institute civil action against an employer for an injury sustained or disease contracted during the course and scope of employment. Furthermore, this thesis also explores the marriage between the Occupational Health and Safety Act 89 of 1993 and the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993 as well as the position of ‘employee’ and ‘employer’ insofar as the scope and application of these two acts are concerned with specific reference to the position of labour broker employees. The use of indemnity clauses and its validity in South Africa will also be explored and discussed. This thesis also dedicates a chapter to the leading case authority of Jooste v Score Supermarket Trading (Pty) Ltd and its effect insofar as the enforcement and application of section 35 of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993 is concerned. It is impossible to mention all the changes in the workplace that have occurred in the recent years, and this discussion therefore focuses on the current position of employees who have been deprived of their common law right to institute delictual action for damages resulting from an injury sustained while on duty as well as the impact of the current restrictive claims available to them. Alterations to existing approaches are also proposed to resurrect the common law right of employees to institute action against their employers. / Abstract