Constrained communication in the safety system of South African mines and the implications for the exercise of the Right to Refuse Dangerous Work.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17159/Abstract
Abstract
Embedded in the Mine Health and Safety Act no. 29 of 1996, as amended, is a safety management system that facilitates communication between representatives of the state, capital and labour regarding occupational health and safety (OHS). In practice, in underground mines there are two communication loops between these major role players which effectively serves to separate the operational production chain of command from the political tripartite relations. Worker elected Health and Safety Representatives (HSRs) are involved in both communication loops but end up being severely constrained in both escalating their safety concerns to the legal-political level or meaningfully able to challenge the source of safety hazards in the workplace. One consequence is that this has a direct bearing on the implementation of the Right to Refuse Dangerous Work/Leave a Dangerous Workplace (RRDW/RLDW) as previously reported in this journal. This follow-up article presents data and analysis of worker and production supervisor perspectives on the implementation of the RRDW. Despite having two distinct communication pathways through which to pursue safety issues in the event of a work refusal, HSRs were found to primarily consult their production supervisors in preference to their trade union representatives. This paper demonstrates how, in South African mining, the existence of two distinct, interdependent, yet self-referential and self-regulating communication subsystems each corresponding to its own environment, constrains rather than facilitates effective communication within the overall tripartite mine safety management system.
Keywords: South African mines, worker safety, health and safety representatives, safety system
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Paul Finlay Stewart, Nancy Coulson
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
THE INSTITUTE, AS A BODY, IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STATEMENTS AND OPINIONS ADVANCED IN ANY OF ITS PUBLICATIONS.
Copyright© 1978 by The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. All rights reserved. Multiple copying of the contents of this publication or parts thereof without permission is in breach of copyright, but permission is hereby given for the copying of titles and abstracts of papers and names of authors. Permission to copy illustrations and short extracts from the text of individual contributions is usually given upon written application to the Institute, provided that the source (and where appropriate, the copyright) is acknowledged. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of review or criticism under The Copyright Act no. 98, 1978, Section 12, of the Republic of South Africa, a single copy of an article may be supplied by a library for the purposes of research or private study. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission of the publishers. Multiple copying of the contents of the publication without permission is always illegal.
U.S. Copyright Law applicable to users In the U.S.A.
The appearance of the statement of copyright at the bottom of the first page of an article appearing in this journal indicates that the copyright holder consents to the making of copies of the article for personal or internal use. This consent is given on condition that the copier pays the stated fee for each copy of a paper beyond that permitted by Section 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. The fee is to be paid through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., Operations Center, P.O. Box 765, Schenectady, New York 12301, U.S.A. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying, such as copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works, or for resale.
