Occupational Health & Safety Legislation Consultants
 | Anglogold_Ashanti_v_Mbonamb.pdf (258.45KB) |
| Anglogold_Ashanti_v_Mbonamb.pdf (258.45KB) |
The liability scope of inspectors in this case is shaped by both statutory powers and judicial oversight:
1. Statutory Powers and Limits
Inspectors act under the Mine Health and Safety Act (MHSA), which empowers them to issue instructions to protect health and safety at mines. However, these powers are limited to situations where there are objective grounds to believe that a condition endangers health or safety.
Inspectors must ensure their actions are necessary and proportionate to the risks identified. Overreach or lack of objective justification can render their actions unlawful.
2. Judicial Scrutiny and Accountability
The court found that the inspectors in this case failed to properly apply their minds, did not establish objective grounds for their actions, and issued disproportionate orders. This was described as a gross abuse of the MHSA's provisions.
The judgment highlights that when officials act improperly or in bad faith, courts may consider making personal cost orders against them, holding them financially accountable for litigation costs. However, such orders require a specific request from the applicants.
3. Practical Application in This Case
Although the inspectors' conduct was criticized, no personal liability was imposed because the applicants did not seek such an order. Instead, costs were awarded against the state respondents collectively.
The judgment serves as a warning: inspectors who act outside their statutory mandate or abuse their powers risk personal liability if a court is asked to consider it and finds gross misconduct.
Example Implementation:
If parties believe inspectors have acted unlawfully or in bad faith, they should explicitly request a personal cost order in their court application. The court may then investigate the conduct and, if warranted, order the inspector to pay costs personally.
In summary, inspectors are protected when acting within their statutory powers and in good faith, but they may face personal liability for costs if they abuse their powers or act without proper justification, provided such liability is specifically sought in court.
The same principles apply to OHS Act section 30 Prohibition Notices issued by DEL.
| Industrial_Health_Group_VS_DEL.pdf (137.69KB) |
| Industrial_Health_Group_VS_DEL.pdf (137.69KB) |
Industrial Health Resource Group and others v Minister of Labour and others [2015] (GP)
Factual Background of the Fire Incident
• A fire occurred at Paarl Print factory on 17 April 2009, causing deaths and injuries.
• An inquiry was conducted to determine the cause and make safety recommendations.
• The inquiry lasted 20 days, with witnesses and evidence presented.
• The report was submitted to authorities, but families and applicants sought access.
• Respondents argued that access was restricted by law to protect confidentiality and governance principles.
Legal Framework Governing Fire Inquiry and Access Rights
• The Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) mandates investigations into workplace incidents.
• Section 32 of OHSA requires a presiding inspector to conduct inquiries into serious incidents.
• The Act specifies who can access the inquiry report, mainly authorities and certain officials.
• The Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) grants broader rights to access information held by the state.
• Courts interpret these laws to balance transparency, safety, and confidentiality.
Court Ruling on Access to Inquiry Report
• The court held that interested parties are entitled to access the inquiry report upon request.
• The Department of Labour's policy of blanket refusal was found unlawful and inconsistent with laws.
• The Minister of Labour was ordered to provide the report to applicants within five days.
• The ruling emphasized the importance of transparency, accountability, and constitutional rights.
• The decision highlighted that access to information supports victims' rights and safety reforms.
Significance of the Case and Broader Implications
• The case affirms the right to access workplace incident reports under constitutional principles.
• It clarifies the scope of law regarding disclosure of safety investigation reports.
• The ruling promotes transparency and accountability in occupational health and safety matters.
• It underscores the importance of balancing confidentiality with public interest and safety.
• The judgment may influence future access rights to safety and incident reports in South Africa.
SIAOSH Annual Conference. 31 July 2026. My topic 'Anatomy of a Disaster. The Grayston Bridge Collapse'.
| Labuscagne_vs_RMA_2026.pdf (233.62KB) |
| Labuscagne_vs_RMA_2026.pdf (233.62KB) |
The Profile of Occupational Health and Safety South Africa. A project commissioned jointly by the ILO and the DEL.
OHS Strategy 2024 – 2029 Route to Zero Injuries and Diseases.
‘Employers perceive OSH and inspections in particular, as punitive and not as a way to support their business and sustainability. A view was expressed that employers fear Inspectors and the inspection process. They understand that the Inspectors’ main purpose is to close down their businesses and implementation of OSH legislation is mainly driven by fear.
Recommendations.
Improve relationships between inspectorate and employers. We need more open communication. OSH profession to transition to empowerment rather than to police. Inspectors to transition to be able to assist and to make companies see them as of a partner.’ International Labour Organisation (ILO).
Guidelines on General Principles of Labour Inspections. ILO.
‘Labour inspection should be supervised by a central authority, independent from improper political interference and external influences’. Article 6 of the ILO Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81).
The Minister of Employment & Labour ‘visits’ Cartrack. 15 July 2026. If an employee dies of purely natural causes at the workplace, it is not considered a section 24 reportable incident under the OHS Act. Section 24 mandates the reporting of fatalities, injuries, or illnesses only if they are work-related and arise out of or in connection with the employee's activities, the employer’s operations, or the use of plant and machinery. Because natural causes (like a heart attack, stroke, or pre-existing medical condition) are not caused by the workplace environment or work activities, they do not trigger OHS Act reporting.
COIDA. ‘accident’ means an incident or occurrence arising out of and in the course of an employee’s employment and resulting in a personal injury, illness, occupational disease or the death of the employee.’’
Have we reached such a low point that DEL – and the Labour & Employment Deputy Minister in particular – will investigate and vilify employers where employees die of natural causes based on (toxic) social medial postings. I thought things could not get worse after the unlawful raid on Normandien farms? Click here for more. RHL.
In my capacity as OHS Legal Counsel for SAIOSH, I will be presenting a virtual worshop on this topic entitled ' Are Employers under siege by the Political Elite & their Proxies'.
Guidelines on General Principles of Labour Inspections. ILO.
‘Labour inspection should be supervised by a central authority, independent from improper political interference and external influences’. Article 6 of the ILO Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81).
‘Dhladhla died inside a toilet cubicle at Cartrack’s Rosebank offices on 7 June 2026. IOL.
‘It is alleged that Dhladhla informed a supervisor that she was unwell but was instructed to continue working. A colleague said she appeared unwell in the days before her death and was visibly distressed at work. The death of Dhladhla has sent shockwaves across the country, with mounting calls for accountability. This comes after the ANCYL in Gauteng led a protest on Thursday calling on the company to take accountability for Dhladhla’s death. Deputy Minister Jomo Sibiya said "Yesterday I spoke to the chief inspector regarding the matter. We are doing a thorough investigation and we want to make sure that we leave no stone unturned, but we want to be sure of exactly what happened.“ Perhaps wait for the postmortum results? RHL.
“Spoke or Instruct’? Accountability suggests wrongdoing. Natural causes or a section 24 IOD?
Cartrack and the Maharishi Invincibility Institute partner to fight youth unemployment in SA by bridging the gap between education and guaranteed job placement. The irony. RHL.
'South Africa has a recurring pattern of organised campaigns against private businesses — campaigns that produce legal costs, reputational damage, and, in some cases, closure. Each episode is treated as isolated. None is treated as the systemic problem it represents. Until political leadership is willing to name that pattern and draw consequences from it, the interdicts will keep coming, the businesses will keep absorbing the damage, and the economy will keep paying the price'. Phumlani M. Majozi is senior economist and executive director at African Markets Institute and author of Lessons from Past Heroes. Phumlani M. Majozi is senior economist and executive director at African Markets Institute and author of Lessons from Past Heroes. Political parties are also behind this harassment. RHL
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1004241102363119
Hear the other side. (Audi alterem partem Rule).
Cartrack explains circumstances around employee’s death at Rosebank offices. 17 June 2026
Cartrack has rejected claims that an employee who passed away at its Rosebank offices was denied the opportunity to go home. Social media erupted over the weekend after claims were made that a female Cartrack employee died on Friday while on duty. The posts claimed that the employee was not allowed to leave the premises despite reporting she was ill, something the company stated was not the case. The company explained that the female experienced a “sudden and unexpected” medical emergency while at work. Cartrack states that the deceased arrived at work at 8am on Saturday morning and by 9am told her manager that she was feeling ill.
The manager went with the employee to the bathroom, with the female allegedly locking herself in the stall. “The manager returned to the bathroom a few minutes later to check on her, and when she did not get a response, she immediately notified facilities to get the door opened and, at the same time, activated the trained first responders to assist. “Our on-site first responders were equipped with an automatic external defibrillator. Cartrack stated that the employee had provided a sick note for leave taken on 1 June, but had also alerted her manager of “sensitive, private, and personal challenges” that she was facing.
Cartrack employs over 2,500 people globally, with exact employee estimates varying between 2,500 and 6,000 depending on the platform. The company operates a vast global footprint with a strong presence in South Africa.
Cartrack’s holding company, Karooooo, holds an estimated total market capitalisation of roughly $1.43 billion (approx. R23.4 billion). Karooooo is a South African-founded company. However, it is officially headquartered and incorporated in Singapore.
Lunga Nkwenkwezi, EFF Sub-Region B spokesperson, said the visit to Cartrack was motivated by allegations spreading on social media and was aimed at gathering the facts before the party took any further course of action. Nkwenkwezi stated that the party wanted to engage with Cartrack first before meeting up with the deceased employee’s family.
Emfuleni contractor dies after being trapped in sewer manhole for hours. 21 June 2026
https://www.news24.com/southafrica/news/emfuleni-contractor-dies-after-being-trapped-in-sewer-manhole-for-hours-20260620-1114
OHS Act. Construction Regulation 13. Excavation.
(1) A contractor must -
(a) ensure that all excavation work is carried out under the supervision of a competent person who has been appointed in writing for that purpose; and
(b) evaluate, as far as is reasonably practicable, the stability of the ground before excavation work begins.
(2) A contractor who performs excavation work -
(a) must take reasonable and sufficient steps in order to prevent, as far as is reasonably practicable, any person from being buried or trapped by a fall or dislodgement of material in an excavation.
No outrage from the Deputy Minister like with the Cartrack (natural causes) fatality? RHL
A Parliamentary Portfolio Committee does not have the legal authority to inspect a private business residence. While these committees have broad constitutional oversight powers to monitor state organs and public administration, they do not possess the statutory right of entry, inspection, or search without notice for private entities. https://www.parliament.gov.za/news/labour-committee-briefed-powers-members-when-conducting-oversight-visits-private-companies
Criminal charges laid against Members of Parliament for crimen injuria and racist behaviour. 29 May 2026
Sean Hoatson, the CEO of Normandien Farms, said the group has laid criminal charges against members of parliament (MPs) for crimen injuria and racist behaviour. This followed an unannounced visit by the MPs, accompanied by armed police officers, to Normandien Farms last month. Members of this committee were on an oversight of departmental operations in the Amajuba district. Normandien Farms is the district’s largest employer and includes Thirsti, which produces bottled water and sports drinks. Normandien Farms and Thirsti have 3,000 employees and a spotless compliance record with South Africa’s labour laws. On 4 February 2026, the Department of Employment and Labour released a statement saying it was a joint inter-department team visit to the farm. It said the visit included people from the Inspection and Enforcement Services and the Portfolio Committee on Employment and Labour. The inspection assignment was being overseen by the committee, it said. “During the visit, there was muted resistance to cooperation. The farm owners were warned of their actions and later relented and allowed the inspection,” it said. However, Hoatson has a different version of events. He said a group of approximately 50 unidentified individuals arrived at the property in ten SUVs. The MPs, who arrived unannounced, demanded entry to the private property and did not comply with safety or foot-and-mouth disease protocols. (This has been confirmed by Opposition Members of the Portfolio Commitee and constitutes criminality. RHL.) On arrival, they intimidated and overran security. When security refused them entrance, they were threatened with arrest by the police.
He explained that no introduction, identification, or letter of appointment was shown or offered by the group. Hoatson added that members of the Portfolio Committee on Labour hurled verbal abuse and racist remarks towards senior staff members of the employer. Hoatson described the group’s visit to his farm as a hostile, unauthorised inspection intended for social media likes rather than for actual legal compliance. He added that the inspectors found no actual violations but issued a prohibition notice for media optics. Hoatson described the group as unmanageable, adding that they forced their way past security with the help of heavily armed police. They have registered cases for crimen injuria and racist behaviour exhibited by some members of the group. “We have laid cases at the local police station against some of the members of the group for crimen injuria and racist behaviour,” he said. However, Hoatson said that despite registering these cases, they have not heard back from the police about further action. In addition to the criminal charges, the company has written directly to Parliament to bring focus to the overreach and intimidation that occurred during the visit. One of the biggest problems was that the group ignored strict biosecurity protocols for foot-and-mouth disease. Hoatson said they had not laid specific charges under those health protocols at that stage, focusing instead on the individuals’ criminal behaviour. (Article repeated under OHS News)
Overreach = Politicians interfering in the daily administrative and procurement duties of civil servants, blurring the line between politics and administration. It violates the doctrine of the separation of powers.
The Prohibition Notice served on the Normandien Farms sawmill was issued by the DEL to halt dangerous work activities and temporarily shut down operations.
Inspectors issued the directive for several OHS non-compliances, including:
• Workers being exposed to dust without appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
• Workers consuming meals in a dusty environment.
• The failure to provide hygienic ablution facilities and adequate dining spaces.
Key distinctions limit their ability to conduct these visits:
- Private vs. Public Premises: Committees and individual Members of Parliament (MPs) do not hold the statutory power to access private homes or the premises of private companies uninvited. Their oversight power is primarily directed at the Executive, government departments, and state-owned entities.
- Lack of Inspection Powers: Unlike specific regulatory officials (such as labour or health inspectors), committee members do not have legal authorisation to bypass regular notice requirements or demand immediate entry to investigate non-compliance.
- Summoning Powers: If a portfolio committee requires information or wishes to inspect a specific matter, the correct legal procedure is to invite or formally summon individuals to appear before the committee in Parliament, rather than conducting unannounced visits on private property. www.parliament.gov.za
For more disturbing information click on the links below:
- Click here for the interview with the CEO (Normandien Farms / Thirsti).
- Click here
- Click here
- Click here
DRAFT GUIDELINES. Oversight visits by committees and members of the national assembly. (November 2025. Not yet adopted).
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Oversight visits shall not be adversarial and must be conducted with the decorum expected of members of the Assembly.
- A committee or a member must not, when visiting a government facility, disrupt services, demand information from an office-bearer or official that may not be immediately available, or solicit information that is of a personal or confidential nature.
- A committee or a member may not visit a government facility that involves a security or physical risk, unless prior arrangements have been made with the relevant Executive Authority and all relevant protocols are observed.
- All members must, when undertaking a visit to a government facility, show their parliamentary permit and identification document to the person responsible for access to the facility before being permitted access.
- All members must, when visiting a government facility, adhere to the standards of conduct including dress, as provided for in the rules and conventions of the Assembly and the Code of Ethical Conduct, as contained in the Joint Rules.
Under the ILO framework, labour inspections are conducted by qualified technical experts, not political executives. www.ilo.org
Guidelines on General Principles of Labour Inspections. ILO. ‘Labour inspection should be supervised by a central authority, independent from political changes and improper external influences’.
Who invited COSATU?
‘COSATU commends the Portfolio Committee on Employment and Labour on the blitz oversight inspection it conducted in Newcastle, KZN late last week. COSATU in KZN deployed members of its leadership and local structures to assist in the operation conducted in conjunction with the Department of Employment and Labour, South African Police Service, Newcastle Metro Police and the Department of Home Affairs. A farm in Normandien was temporarily closed when it was found to have violated the Occupational Health & Safety Act.
‘No individual or member of the public has the authority to conduct workplace inspections. Such actions are unlawful and misrepresent the mandate of the Department. The Department reiterates that only duly appointed labour inspectors, designated in terms of applicable labour legislation, are empowered to conduct both proactive and reactive workplace inspections. The Department does not recognise or authorise activists, organisations, agents, or representatives to act as inspectors on its behalf’. Acting Director-General (DEL) Ms Jacky Molisane. 8 April 2026
OHS Act. Section 29(2). Functions of an Inspector
(a) An interpreter, a member of the SAPS or any other assistant may, when required by an inspector, accompany him when he performs his functions under this Act.
(b) For the purposes of this Act an inspector's assistant shall, while he acts under the instructions of an inspector, be deemed to be an inspector.
An inspector's assistant is any person—such as an interpreter, a police officer, or a technical specialist—authorised by the DEL to accompany an inspector during a workplace visit. While acting under the inspector's direct instructions, the assistant is legally deemed to be an inspector and shares the same powers.
Purpose of an Assistant
• Because occupational health and safety can involve highly technical environments, inspectors often rely on assistants to execute their duties:
• Technical Experts: Specialised engineers or occupational hygiene experts may be brought in to evaluate complex plant machinery or chemical hazards.
• Interpreters: To ensure that all employees fully understand their rights, questions, and obligations during a site visit.
• Law Enforcement: Police officers may accompany an inspector to maintain order, ensure safety, or assist in the seizure of evidence if there is resistance. A POLITICIAN CANNOT SERVE AS AN OFFICIAL ASSISTANT, designated inspector, or authorised third-party representative for DEL during an inspection. www.gov.za
{Redacted Prohibition Notice published with permission}.
Under PAJA an administrator (DEL Inspector) cannot unilaterally, arbitrarily, or secretly change the interpretation of a regulation if that change adversely affects the rights of any person. PAJA requires that any decision-making process—including interpretation that leads to action—must be lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair. Inconsistent enforcement of regulatory standards is generally considered irrational and unlawful in terms of the PAJA. www.justice.gov.za
Based on standard construction contract principles and typical legal frameworks, a DEL inspector cannot unilaterally interpret an "expected" or "anticipated" time of completion (of construction as per the Construction Work Permot CWP) as a strictly binding (contractual) completion date. The labour Court has also ruled that a MHASA Safety Stoppage (OHASA Prohibition Notice) must be proportionate. www.polity.org.za
Truworths versus the Chief Inspector (First respondent) DEL (Second Respondent) Labour Court 2025
Inspectors directed the employer to provide seating at cashier desks, claiming non-compliance with Facilities Regulation 8(b), without considering whether it was reasonably practicable for the employer to do so. The Court emphasised that inspectors must objectively assess whether the employer's arrangements are reasonably practicable, considering factors like workplace layout, operational needs, and alternative seating arrangements. The employer had provided seating elsewhere and the Court found this met the regulation's requirements. Inspectors cannot impose their preferences or ignore practical constraints. The chief inspector rejected the employer's appeal, arguing the employer failed to prove it was not reasonably practicable to provide seating at the cash desks. The Court clarified that the onus is not on the employer to prove non-practicability. Instead, inspectors must objectively evaluate the employer's measures and only issue directions if statutory criteria are not met. The chief inspector refused the appeal based on irrelevant considerations (such as requiring a risk assessment for standing employees), which was not a regulatory requirement). The Court held that decisions must be based on relevant statutory criteria and supported by sufficient reasons. Irrelevant or unsubstantiated grounds cannot justify enforcement actions.
Facilities Regulation 8. Seats
Every employer shall -
(a) where reasonably practicable, provide an ergonomically sound seat for every employee whose work can be effectively performed while sitting;
(b) where reasonably practicable, permit an employee whose work is normally performed standing to take advantage of any opportunity for sitting which may occur, and for this purpose the employer shall provide seating facilities; and
(c) provide seats with backrests where the nature of work performed by the employees is such that such seats can be used.
(In SA the design and safety of staircases are governed by the National Building Regulations & Building Standards Act. Compliance with this Act is detailed through the SANS 10400 building codes, specifically Part M (Stairways) and Part T (Fire Protection).
| Truworths_v_DEL_25.pdf (439.81KB) |
| Truworths_v_DEL_25.pdf (439.81KB) |
Section 29. Functions of inspectors
(1)(h) An inspector may direct any employer, employee or user (including any former employer, employee or user to appear before him at such time and place as may be determined by him and question such employer, employee or user either alone or in the presence of any other person on any matter to which this Act relates.
'It will be unlawful for a DEL inspector to summon an employer or initiate enforcement actions on a matter that falls entirely outside the scope of the OHS Act or other legislation they are mandated to enforce. It is generally lawful for a DEL inspector in to request information not explicitly listed in the OHS provided the request is relevant to assessing health and safety compliance. Inspectors have broad, legally binding powers under Section 29 of the Act to investigate, monitor, and enforce safety standards which often necessitate gathering information beyond e.g. a basic checklist. If a request for information has no bearing on health and safety compliance or the specific regulations under the OHSA, it may fall outside the inspector's legal mandate. A DEL inspector has the authority to demand reasons for changes in personnel on a construction site to ensure that only competent, properly trained and legally compliant personnel are working on-site. Changes in personnel, particularly key roles (construction manager, supervisor, safety officer) can impact safety. An inspector must ensure new personnel are competent and trained. Changes in personnel must be updated in the H & S File which the inspector is entitled to review.' www.labour.gov.za / www.labourguide.co.za RHL
An individual is legally allowed to have a legal representative present when giving an affidavit to a Department of Employment and Labour (DEL) inspector.
Because an inspector has the legal power to administer oaths and require statements under oath or affirmation, any sworn statement can be used in subsequent legal or administrative proceedings. Therefore, an individual has the right to consult and have their attorney present for guidance.
Key Points to Note:
No Obligation to Answer Immediately: If you are caught off guard or feel unsure, you are generally not required to answer the inspector's questions or sign an affidavit on the spot. You can request time to seek legal counsel.
The Inspector's Powers: While the inspector has the right to enter premises and question individuals, they cannot force you to forfeit your right to legal counsel before making a sworn declaration.
Witness Rights vs. Accused Rights: If you are making an affidavit as a witness, your legal representative can advise you on your rights regarding self-incrimination, but the attorney cannot testify on your behalf or interfere with the inspector's statutory duties. If you are facing an inspection or investigation, it is highly advisable to consult with a registered South African labour lawyer or contact the South African Society for Labour Law (SASLAW) for pro-bono or limited legal services before making any binding, under-oath statements.
 | ER24 Holdings v Smith_2007_SCA.pdf (74.43KB) |
| ER24 Holdings v Smith_2007_SCA.pdf (74.43KB) |
The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has held that a volunteer worker undergoing vocational experience that was essential to enable her to qualify ultimately as a paramedic was not covered by COIDA. ER24 Holdings v Smith & another [2007] (SCA). Below). Whether volunteers are covered by the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (COIDA) in South Africa depends heavily on whether they meet the legal definition of an "employee" and if they receive any form of remuneration.
Key Considerations:
Definition of an Employee: COIDA covers employees who work under a contract of service, apprenticeship, or learnership. Volunteers who provide services without expectation of payment are generally not covered.
Remuneration and Allowances: If a "volunteer" receives a stipend, allowance, or payment that has a "readily ascertainable value," they may be considered an employee and therefore covered.
Control and Dependency: Courts may apply a "purposive interpretation," looking at factors such as whether the volunteer's work is controlled by another, if they are integrated into the organisation, and if they are economically dependent on it. If these factors are present, they may be deemed employees.
Voluntary vs. Mandatory: If volunteering is unpaid and entirely at the discretion of the person, they are typically not covered by COIDA.
Recommendations for Employers:
Voluntary Policy: Organisations should define volunteer roles clearly to ensure they do not substitute for paid work.
Insurance: Because volunteers might not be covered by COIDA, employers are advised to obtain specific insurance policies to cover injury, disability, or death for volunteers.
If a volunteer is considered an employee, they are entitled to the same benefits as any other worker under COIDA.
Me receiving a lovely gift (Bluetooth speaker) from the ILO representative at DEL's Conference and also my gratitute to the Chief Inspector for the opportunity to address the Conference.
Minister Dean Macpherson updates on Preliminary report on Verulam Temple collapse
COIDA Amendments signed into law. Courtesy Webber Wentzel below.
| Webber_Wentzel_COIDA_Amendments_Jan_26.pdf (290.78KB) |
| Webber_Wentzel_COIDA_Amendments_Jan_26.pdf (290.78KB) |
Proud to be inducted into the SAIOSH Hall of Fame. 15 August 2025
I thought it was perhaps time to rehash the rather tired topic of the so-called written appointments in terms of section 16(2) of the OHS Act. Although there has been no change to the wording of section 16(2), DEL has started enforcing, via audits, their own interpretation. Although I disagree with DEL’s interpretation and have motivated my stance many times – including on my website, suffice to say that employers / CEOs who deviate from their rigid interpretation can readily kowtow to DoL’s interpretation and achieve the same result.
Truworths successfully appealed a Department of Labour enforcement action regarding seating for cash desk employees at their stores, arguing that the Occupational Health and Safety Act's requirement for "reasonably practicable" measures was not met by the inspector's unfounded directives. The Johannesburg Labour Court agreed with Truworths, noting that inspectors must assess the overall practicality of safety measures, not just dictate specific solutions. The court also clarified that the inspectors' failure to present valid certificates of appointment rendered their actions invalid.
| Draft_GMR_Aug_25.pdf (243.42KB) |
| Draft_GMR_Aug_25.pdf (243.42KB) |
| George_Collapse_ECSA_charges_july_25.pdf (485.7KB) |
| George_Collapse_ECSA_charges_july_25.pdf (485.7KB) |
| media_statement_George_Collapse.pdf (554.07KB) |
| media_statement_George_Collapse.pdf (554.07KB) |
'Process forward.......
Falls from height remain a significant safety concern in the South African construction industry. According to the Federated Employers Mutual Assurance Company (FEM), which ensures a substantial portion of the formal construction workforce, falls from different levels accounted for 10% of all accidents and 14% of fatal accidents between 2015 and 2024.
| Fall_from_heights_stats.pdf (164.19KB) |
| Fall_from_heights_stats.pdf (164.19KB) |
| saiosh_comments_-_draft_cons.pdf (901.08KB) |
| saiosh_comments_-_draft_cons.pdf (901.08KB) |
Great DEL Conference on Construction Health & Safety hosted by my good friend Phumi Maphaha. He kindly posed for a pic with me and acknowledged my contribution to the OHS Industry in SA. 30 May 2025.
I am presenting this Thursday at the A-OHS Expo 2025 at 11h00 focusing on some OHS case studies including the Grayston Bridge Collapse and the Paarl Print Fire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKoQuf6mnIA&t=2610s
The silhouette is me!
| Hobongwana_v_Benteler_2023_ECP.pdf (244.63KB) |
| Hobongwana_v_Benteler_2023_ECP.pdf (244.63KB) |
The document is a legal judgment from the High Court of South Africa regarding a personal injury claim by Lonwabo Hobongwana against Benteler South Africa Pty Ltd, stemming from a lower back injury sustained while operating machinery at the defendant's automotive manufacturing plant.
Liability Case in South African Automotive Industry
This section discusses a legal case involving a plaintiff's injury at an automotive plant due to inadequate training and supervision.
The plaintiff sustained a lower back injury on March 16, 2016, while operating machinery at the defendant's automotive plant.
The plaintiff was moved to the SSB line without adequate training, despite expressing his lack of knowledge about the machinery.
The defendant admitted a legal duty to ensure proper training for operators but denied negligence.
The plaintiff's training consisted of a brief demonstration lasting only 5-6 minutes, which was deemed insufficient.
The SSB line involved operating heavy machinery, specifically a rear axle weighing approximately 20 kilograms.
The plaintiff's injury occurred shortly after he began working on the SSB line, within 10-15 minutes of his arrival.
Expert witness Maretha Waldron confirmed the injury mechanism aligned with the plaintiff's account of events.
The defendant's employees provided inadequate supervision and failed to ensure a safe working environment.
The court found that the defendant did not take reasonable steps to prevent the injury.
The plaintiff's version of events was accepted as credible, while the defendant's witnesses were found unreliable.
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, establishing the defendant's liability for damages.
The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the hearing, including expert witness fees.
The case highlights the importance of proper training and supervision in high-risk manufacturing environments.
The judgment emphasises the need for adherence to safety standards in the automotive industry.
The plaintiff's employment was through a labour broker, Ulrica and Associates, which provided services to the defendant.
This Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) set the precedent.
Crown Chickens v Rieck SCA 2007.
Overview: The document discusses a legal case involving an employee's injury during a robbery and the employer's liability.
Case Background
Crown Chickens Pty Ltd was robbed, and employee Ms. Rieck was taken hostage.
Security personnel fired shots at the getaway vehicle, injuring Rieck.
Rieck sued the employer for damages, claiming negligence.
Legal Findings
The trial court found the employer vicariously liable for Rieck's injury.
The employer's defence relied on section 351 of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, which was rejected.
Employment Relationship
Rieck was employed by a labour broker, not directly by the appellant.
The court determined that the appellant could not claim indemnity under the Act.
The definitions of "employer" and "employee" in the Act were analysed, confirming Rieck's employer was the labour broker.
Click here for more.
The document is a legal judgment from the Labour Court of South Africa regarding the review of an arbitration award related to the unfair dismissal of an employee from Northam Platinum Limited.
Labour Court Case Summary
Northam Platinum Limited's case against the CCMA and Commissioner Maile was heard on May 2, 2025, with judgment delivered electronically on March 5, 2025.
Review of Arbitration Award Decision
This section discusses the review of an arbitration award regarding the unfair dismissal of an employee.
• The application reviews an arbitration award dated 30 November 2021, under case number LP2306-21.
• The respondent, an electrician since 2008, was dismissed for gross negligence after an electrocution incident on 8 February 2019.
• The respondent earned R38,000 per month at the time of dismissal.
• The charge sheet included failures to lock-out power, complete risk assessments, use PPE, and work with assistants.
• The respondent was found guilty at a disciplinary hearing but had his dismissal overturned on appeal.
• The CCMA found the dismissal substantively and procedurally unfair, ordering reinstatement with backpay.
• The commissioner concluded the applicant did not prove how the respondent was electrocuted.
• The applicant argued the commissioner failed to resolve factual disputes and did not apply the correct legal tests.
• The court emphasized the need for a reasonable decision-maker's standard in reviewing arbitration awards.
• The applicant contended the commissioner ignored critical evidence and improperly weighed testimonies.
• The court found the commissioner committed several gross irregularities, including failing to consider relevant factors and making legal errors.
• The final ruling set aside the arbitration award, declaring the dismissal fair.
• No costs were awarded due to the power imbalance in labour disputes.
• The decision highlights the importance of proper evidence evaluation and adherence to procedural fairness in arbitration.
• The case underscores the legal standards for reviewing arbitration awards under the Labour Relations Act.
| Draft_construction_regs_2025.pdf (856.76KB) |
| Draft_construction_regs_2025.pdf (856.76KB) |
| noise_exposure_regulations,_2025.pdf (2.03MB) |
| noise_exposure_regulations,_2025.pdf (2.03MB) |
| physical_agents_regulations_2025.pdf (20.9MB) |
| physical_agents_regulations_2025.pdf (20.9MB) |
| general_safety_regulations,_2025.pdf (197.34KB) |
| general_safety_regulations,_2025.pdf (197.34KB) |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKAEWqE4onE
| Mostert_V_Overberg_2025.pdf (1.54MB) |
| Mostert_V_Overberg_2025.pdf (1.54MB) |
| frequently_asked_questions_r.pdf (2.39MB) |
| frequently_asked_questions_r.pdf (2.39MB) |
DEL : Frequently asked questions relating to asbestos and the Asbestos Abatement Regulations. (Above).
Extract from Mostert vs Cape Town City Council, 2001 SCA which introduces cost versus benefit considerations into the traditional test for negligence. This aligns with the ‘reasonably practical’ approach to the duties of employers and which has been deliberately omitted in draft OHS legislation in SA.
Mr Ramsay, the only pipeline expert called on the subject, regarded the proposal as both impractical and dangerous. Dangerous in that such tests could damage the pipeline. First impracticality. Because it serves as a distribution line, a test would entail shutting off the valves in pipes leading out of it, which would lead to affected areas being without water. Moreover, the seals provided by valves that would have to be closed were so imperfect that a proper test was not feasible. As far as cost was concerned, testing would have to go on all year in order to complete one test, as it was not practicable to test more than a kilometre at a time and tests would presumably have to be performed over weekends when there was less traffic. An additional problem was, at what intervals should tests be performed? Van Rooyen was of no real help on this practical question and Ramsay did not know what the answer to it was. On top of all this (and this is the danger aspect) Ramsay was of the view that such tests could have a deleterious effect, in that they could cause joints to leak, leading to erosion of the bedding, with consequent possible damage to pipes. Van Rooyen had no effective counter to these objections, and I consider that the court a quo was correct in rejecting the proposal as a solution.
“There are ... four basic considerations in each case which influence the reaction of the reasonable man in the situation posing a foreseeable risk of harm to others: (a) the degree or extent of the risk created by the actor’s conduct; (b) the gravity of the possible consequences if the risk of harm materialises; (c) the utility of the actor’s conduct; and (d) the burden of eliminating the risk of harm.”
The classic test for negligence is stated in Kruger v Coetzee 1966 (2) SA 428 (A) at 430E-G, as follows:
“For the purposes of liability culpa arises if –
(a) a diligens paterfamilias in the position of the defendant
(i) would foresee the reasonable possibility of his conduct injuring another in his person or property and causing him patrimonial loss; and
(ii) would take reasonable steps to guard against such occurrence; and
(b) the defendant failed to take such steps.”
Requirement (a)(i) is satisfied. The Council could foresee in 1983 that pipes might burst again, causing property damage and consequent patrimonial loss. But as Holmes JA pointed out at 430G:
“Requirement (a)(ii) is sometimes overlooked. Whether a diligens paterfamilias in the position of the person concerned would take any guarding steps at all and, if so, what steps would be reasonable, must always depend upon the particular circumstances of each case.”
It is certainly not the position that the Council has adopted an attitude of indifference, content that damage might fall upon the luckless. Active steps are taken to prevent or minimize damage. I have referred to the two-daily patrol, aimed at detecting leaks and activities near the pipeline which might cause it harm. In addition, repair crews and engineers are on 24-hour standby, to deal with bursts as expeditiously as possible when they should occur. But the question is whether the Council was obliged to go further and replace a substantial part of the pipeline. In the words of Prof JC van der Walt, quoted from Lawsa in Ngubane v South African Transport Services 1991 (1) SA 756 (A) at 776I:
“There are ... four basic considerations in each case which influence the reaction of the reasonable man in the situation posing a foreseeable risk of harm to others: (a) the degree or extent of the risk created by the actor’s conduct; (b) the gravity of the possible consequences if the risk of harm materialises; (c) the utility of the actor’s conduct; and (d) the burden of eliminating the risk of harm.”
When considerations (a) and (b) are weighed against consideration (d), affordability and proportionality between the loss which may be suffered by occupiers of land and the cost of replacement to the Council must be examined: Administrateur, Transvaal v Van der Merwe 1994 (4) SA 347 (A) at 363C–H (the enquiry in that case was conducted in the context of wrongfulness, but that does not affect the principle or its application).
Returning to the facts of this case, I agree with Tebbutt J’s conclusion that it would not have been reasonable to have expected that the Council should have expended either R118 000 000 or R93 000 000 in replacing the pipeline between 1983 and 1990. Nor do I think that it is to be expected to spend a lesser, but still large sum on replacing pipes where the risk of flooding is regarded as greatest (no easy or certain enterprise to determine where).
"reasonably practicable" means practicable having regard to -
(a) the severity and scope of the hazard or risk concerned;
(b) the state of knowledge reasonably available concerning that hazard or risk and of any means of removing or mitigating that hazard or risk;
(c) the availability and suitability of means to remove or mitigate that hazard or risk; and
(d) the cost of removing or mitigating that hazard or risk in relation to the benefits deriving therefrom.
OHS Act. Section 8. General duties of employers to their employees
(1) Every employer shall provide and maintain, as far as is reasonably practicable, a working environment that is safe and without risk to the health of his employees.
| MHS_Amendment_Act_Oct_24.pdf (438.61KB) |
| MHS_Amendment_Act_Oct_24.pdf (438.61KB) |
Guidelines released by the Department of Employment and Labour: What every employer and worker should know about workplace safety.
On 3 October 2024, the Department of Employment and Labour published a critical guide titled: What every worker and employer should know about health and safety in the workplace. This document outlines the key roles, obligations and rights that both employers and employees must understand to ensure compliance with occupational health and safety (OHS) laws. This guide is an indispensable tool for promoting a safe and compliant workplace.
| HEALTH-SAFETY-IN-THE-WORKPLACE-DOL.pdf .pdf (822.25KB) |
| HEALTH-SAFETY-IN-THE-WORKPLACE-DOL.pdf .pdf (822.25KB) |
Draft OHS Amendment Bill. Criminal Liability 37B.
(1) An employer, chief executive officer, manager, agent or employee commits an offence by contravening or failing to comply with a provision of this Act, thereby causing a person’s-
• death; Does this create a new homicide offence outside the common law crime of culpable homicide?
• permanent disablement: Repeals section 38(2) of the OHS Act which punishes negligent injury which does not discriminate based on the degree or seriousness of the injury and now only criminalises disablement?
• illness. How serious?
(2) The chief executive officer, manager, agent or employer of the employee commits an offence by performing or omitting to perform an act, if the act or omission falls within the scope of the authority or employment of the employer or employee concerned.
Draft OHS Amendment Bill. Section 14A Employees' right to leave dangerous workplace
Every employee has the right to leave any workplace whenever-
circumstances arise at that workplace which, with reasonable justification, appear to that employee to pose a serious danger to the health or safety of that employee; or
the health and safety representative responsible for that workplace directs that employee to leave that workplace.
Every employer, after consulting the health and safety committee at the workplace, must determine effective procedures for the general exercise of the rights granted by subsection (1), and those procedures must provide for-
• notification of supervisors and health and safety representatives of dangers which have been perceived and responded to;
• participation by representatives of employer and representatives of the employees in endeavouring to resolve any issue that may arise from the exercise of the right;
• participation, where necessary, by an inspector or technical adviser to assist in resolving any issue that may arise from the exercise of the right;
• where appropriate, the assignment to suitable alternative work of any employee who left, or refuses to work in, a workplace; and
• notification to any employee who has to perform work or is requested to perform work in a workplace of the fact that another employee has refused to work there and of the reason for that refusal.
• If there is no health and safety committee at a workplace, the consultation must be held with-
• the health and safety representatives; or
• if there is no health and safety representative at the workplace, with the employees.
I stumbled upon this today. A case study of the cost and causes of the Tongaat Mall Accident in Durban by Leonarda van Eeden.
| document (2).pdf (3.28MB) |
| document (2).pdf (3.28MB) |
Life Esidimeni Inquest. The inquest finding that former Gauteng health MEC Qedani Mahlangu and erstwhile director of mental health care in the province Dr Makgabo Manamela should be held criminally liable for the deaths of 10 Life Esidimeni psychiatric patients will come as cold comfort to the families of all those who died or suffered as a result of this devastating episode. If there are no consequences, the whole inquisitory process will have been left incomplete — an open wound that will make it difficult for the affected next of kin to find closure. Sadly, there is also no closure for families of workers who die from workplace incidents as they never participate in DEL section 31 Investigations and formal inquests are seldom / never held. In the Mine Health & Safety Act all fatal incidents are formally inquired into and families not only participate but am afforded the right to cross-examine witnesses.
| Hirt_Carter_v_Arntsen_SCA_2021.pdf (127.73KB) |
| Hirt_Carter_v_Arntsen_SCA_2021.pdf (127.73KB) |
Here is an Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) finding following an appeal against an Inquest finding.
Inquest found three companies negligent for Linkin Park concert goer's death. Cape Town - On November 7, 2012, 32-year-old Florentina Popa died from injuries caused when a scaffolding tower fell on her before a Linkin Park rock concert in Cape Town.
How could the Compensation Commissioner get it so wrong!
| felix_v_DEL_COIDA_2024.pdf (199.0KB) |
| felix_v_DEL_COIDA_2024.pdf (199.0KB) |
| Urquart_PDF.pdf (413.7KB) |
| Urquart_PDF.pdf (413.7KB) |
Registered person placed on precautionary suspension follwing George Building Collapse. Engineering Council South Africa (ECSA). 18 June 2024.
| ECSA_suspension_june_24.pdf (258.92KB) |
| ECSA_suspension_june_24.pdf (258.92KB) |
Written by the former Chief Inspector DEL.
My thanks to SAIOSH for providing me with a platform to debunk section 16 and section 37(2) of the OHS Act yesterday at the Securitex / A-OSH Exhibition on 13 June 2024.
SAIOSH CEO was interviwed on 22 May 2024 on radio 702 about the state of OHS in South Africa. He alluded to the lack of prosections for OHS incidents. For more click on https://www.primediaplus.com/listener-s-choice-how-does-occupational-safety-and-health-work-in-south-africa/
| Langley_fox.pdf (181.98KB) |
| Langley_fox.pdf (181.98KB) |
Click on the link for the video of my presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFroaPfKWLY
Contact Advocate Raynard Looch at raynard04@gmail.com / raynard@klasslooch.com for a quotation. Klass Looch Assciates charges a flat rate - as opposed to a fee per delegate - so you can load the number of delegates!
| Opinion_CR11_2.pdf (142.79KB) |
| Opinion_CR11_2.pdf (142.79KB) |
| Section 16.2 _Liability_jan_24.pdf (50.43KB) |
| Section 16.2 _Liability_jan_24.pdf (50.43KB) |
DEL's interpretation's of a competent Person.
| DEL_Competent_person_guidelines.pdf (752.03KB) |
| DEL_Competent_person_guidelines.pdf (752.03KB) |
Apart from the construction regulations which recognises the statutory appointments of managers, supervisors and safety officers, the current OHS Act and draft OHS Amendment Bill fail to recognise any statutory appointments with the exception of the 16(2) individual – which is not even a compulsory written appointment and the GMR2 appointments. This also contradicts the MHS Act. The UK OHS legislation has a great solution which I embrace providing for all statutory appointments albeit senior, middle managers, supervisors and even safety practitioners. It recognises the importance of devolved statutory appointments where, in the equivalent of section 8, it reads:
- Every employer shall appoint one or more competent persons to assist him in undertaking the measures he needs to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed upon him by or under the relevant statutory provisions.
- The employer shall ensure that the number of persons appointed, the time available for them to fulfil their functions and the means at their disposal are adequate having regard to the size of his undertaking, the risks to which his employees are exposed and the distribution of those risks throughout the undertaking’.
In my view the draft OHS Amendment Bill will be set aside on review. Obviously someone / entity will need to take it on review. It fails to align itself with the Constitution as I outline in this PDF. document. (These are my notes I used for my presentation at the Annual SAIOSH Conference 2023.
| OHS_Amendment_Bill_BACKGROUND.pdf (296.67KB) |
| OHS_Amendment_Bill_BACKGROUND.pdf (296.67KB) |
 | SAIOSH_Annual_conference_june_23.pptx (562.47KB) |
| SAIOSH_Annual_conference_june_23.pptx (562.47KB) |
Above. My presentation to the Master Builders Association Western Cape on 23 February 2023 on the draft OHS Amendment Bill.
The SAIOSH Technical Commitee (TC) commenced analysiing two draft regulations (below) on 31 October 2022. I am a member & have published the TC's comments below.
Draft Noise Induced Hearing Loss Regulationsd (NIHL) and the draft Physical Agents Regulations below:
| saiosh_par_comments_covering_letter.pdf (298.4KB) |
| saiosh_par_comments_covering_letter.pdf (298.4KB) |
| NIHL_draft_regs_2022.pdf (13.6MB) |
| NIHL_draft_regs_2022.pdf (13.6MB) |
| Draft_physical_agents_regs.pdf (10.41MB) |
| Draft_physical_agents_regs.pdf (10.41MB) |
Advocate Raynard Looch presenting at a SAIOSH sponsored workshop in Cape Town on the draft OHS Amendment Bill.
 | (YouTube).The DEL Chief Inspector's presentation at the annual SAIOSH Conference. May 2022. The draft OHS Amendment Bill & related enforcement issues. Phumi_utube_may_22.pptx (48.75KB) |
The draft OHS Amendment Bill & related enforcement issues.
| Phumi_utube_may_22.pptx (48.75KB) |
| The Draft Mine Health & Safety Amendment Bill 2022 Draft_MHS_Bill_2022.pdf (818.48KB) |
| Draft_MHS_Bill_2022.pdf (818.48KB) |
| Department of Employment & Labour's presenation on the Draft OHS Amndment Bill & more. The new Chief Inspector, Phumi Maphaha, presented this presentation at the annual SAIOSH Conference on 1 June 2022. DEL IES OHS SAIOSH_original_ 2022.pptx (990.02KB) |
The new Chief Inspector, Phumi Maphaha, presented this presentation at the annual SAIOSH Conference on 1 June 2022.
| DEL IES OHS SAIOSH_original_ 2022.pptx (990.02KB) |
| The Draft OHS Amendment Bill. A preview of my upcoming PowerPoint Presentation to SAIOSH members later next month. SAIOSH_RHL_june_22.pptx (550.16KB) |
A preview of my upcoming PowerPoint Presentation to SAIOSH members later next month.
| SAIOSH_RHL_june_22.pptx (550.16KB) |
| The Department of Employment & Labour's original presenation on the draft OHS Amendment Bill.. Sadly DEL's take on the Bill fails the Constitutionality Test. SAIOSH_DEL_june_22.ppt (2.93MB) |
Sadly DEL's take on the Bill fails the Constitutionality Test.
| SAIOSH_DEL_june_22.ppt (2.93MB) |
.jpg/picture-200?_=15607a9c9d8)
No-one is immune to prosecution in terms of the OHS Act, yet it is mostly employers and users of plant and machinery who are exposed to criminal prosecution. The reason for this is to be found in the extensive duties which the OHS Act imposes upon them, thereby creating a host of legal rights for employees sections 8 and 13, persons in general (non employees) section 9, recipients of articles and substances manufactured, imported and supplied and utilised at a workplace, clients for whom articles (including structures) are designed, erected or installed. (Section 10) read with the Construction Regulations). Criminal liability emanates from the infringement of these statutory rights by employers or users. Juristic persons or corporate bodies along with natural persons such as the CEO and his or her team of section 16(2)“Assigned Persons’ are regarded as employers and users for prosecution purposes. Employers can also be held vicariously liable for wrongdoings of contractors in terms of section 37.
The duties placed upon employers & users are not absolute but are tempered with reasonability and practicability. What the Labour Court says in this regard:
‘Sections 8 and 9 therefore place a duty on the employer to act proactively to avoid any harm or injury to its employees and others. There is no standard as to what is reasonably practicable. Each case will have to be determined on its own facts and circumstances. As can be seen from the definition of reasonably practicable it involves weighing different considerations from risk evaluation, means of removing or avoiding the risk, resource availability and a cost-benefit analysis. In Edwards v National Coal Board, Lord Justice Asquith stated:
"Reasonably practicable as traditionally interpreted, is a narrower term than 'physically possible' and implies that a computation must be made in which the quantum of risk is placed in one scale and the sacrifice, whether in money, time or trouble involved in the measure necessary to avert the risk is placed in the other; and that, if it is shown that there is a gross disproportion between them, the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice, the person upon who the duty is laid discharges the burden of proving that compliance was not reasonably practicable." Pikitup (SOC) Limited v South African Municipal Workers' Union obo members and others [2014] (LAC)
The broad duties of employers (mines & works) in the Mine Health & Safety Act is contained in sections 5 to 19
Employers have OHS rights too. How does an employer earn such rights?
Start by training your employees into their duties. The opposite of a 'Right' is a "Duty'. If employees have duties, employers have rights. They are not automatic rights as those enjoyed by employees but must be earned. By training employees into their duties, employers earn rights! In the OHS Act section 14 is a good point of departure. Similarly in the MHS Act start with section 22
In brief, you should know the following about us: our company was established in 1986 and had been responsible for providing outstanding legal advice, legal representation and OHS legislation workshops ever since. Our business is located in Johannesburg.
Dear Raynard Looch,
Thank you very much for attending Teaming up for Safety℠, the first virtual conference from DuPont Personal Protection. It was a pleasure for us to host the event and collaborate with our partners to prepare this 2-day digital event for you. We hoped you enjoyed the event as much as we did.
I am also proud to be associated with a body which has been established for Occupational Health & Safety Professionals. The South African Institute of Occupational Safety & Health (SAIOSH) has been established by dedicated safety practitioners for whom I tremendous respect and with whom I have been associated for decades. I encourage you to visit their website. Visit www.saiosh.co.za
Saiosh launch new OHS Legal Advice Forum
Saiosh is pleased to announce that it has secured the services of Advocate Raynard Looch to provide opinion on member's Occupational Health and Safety legal queries. The OHS Legal Advice Forum is now live and members are invited to post their OHS legal queries. This free service is only available to paid up Saiosh members.
Disclaimer:
Opinions expressed on the Saiosh OHS Legal Advice Forum reflect the personal opinion of Advocate Raynard Looch. It is accepted that other individuals may differ with his opinion or interpretation of OHS legislation which remains untested by the courts. Advocate Raynard Looch will not accept liability for any loss, including reputational damage or costs, however caused, arising from the use or reliance upon, in any manner, the opinion provided on this forum and does not warrant the truth, accuracy or completeness of the opinion provided.
The OHS Legal Advice Forum can be found on the "Professional Registration" drop down page on the Saiosh website www.saiosh.co.za
| SAIOSH_RHL_june_22.pptx (550.16KB) |
| SAIOSH_RHL_june_22.pptx (550.16KB) |