The Mine Health and Safety Report: The use of mining stoppages to address safety challenges at mines

In December 2017, the South African Institute of Race Relations published a report titled “Deep and dangerous: Health and safety in our mines”. This article provides a synopsis of an aspect of the report that deals with the use of mining stoppages to address safety challenges at mines. The articlesummarises the report’s findings on how safety challenges are being addressed in mines. 

The report specifically considers sections 54 and 55 of the Mine Health and Safety Act 29 of 1996, which regulate compliance notices and safety stoppages respectively. In terms of section 54, an inspector may close down mining operations if he has ‘reason to believe’ that mine conditions are a hazard to health and safety. The report suggests that section 54 is premised on the assumption that mining companies will not cease operations for safety reasons unless forced to by law. In practice, however, mining companies have often voluntarily chosen to close down mining operations due to safety concerns. Section 55 empowers an inspector to issue a compliance notice instructing a mining company to bring its operations into compliance with the Mine Health and Safety Act.

Over the past few years, mining companies have raised concerns about the cost of ‘unnecessary safety stoppages’ initiated by government inspectors in terms of section 54. Reference is made to a leaked Chamber of Mines report from 2015 that details the alarming number of safety stoppages initiated at 60% of mining companies, during the four years preceding 2015. Since 2012, mining companies have suffered a loss of R13.6 billion in revenue due to safety stoppages. A decrease in fatality rates over the years has been noted, but so has the increased loss ofrevenue, hindering mining companies to generate profit and remain viable businesses.

The report notes that mining companies are resorting to legal action to address the issue of ‘disproportionate’ safety stoppages. For instance, in Anglo Gold Ashanti v Xolile Mbonambi and others,[1]operations were wholly ceased on the company’s Kopanang mine because a mineworker did not return 43 unused explosive cartridges to the explosives box. As a result of the stoppage initiated under section 54, AngloGold lost about R9.5 million daily in production during the stoppage[2]. The court expressed its displeasure with the conduct of the inspectors and stated that it would have held the inspectors personally liable for legal costs if such an order had been requested. The judgment confirmed that the inspectors had to uphold the standard of the reasonable person in enforcing the Mine Health and Safety Act. Thus, inspectors were advised to avoid using a ‘sledgehammer to crack a nut’ by imposing disproportionate safety stoppages for minor infractions on mines. 

According to the report, mining companies are under the impression that the Department of Mineral Resources is hostile to the mining industry because the industry profited unduly for decades from the vicious exploitation of many black mineworkers during the apartheid era. Mining companies are not incorrect in theirimpression. Government officials and civil society still maintain that mining companies prioritiseprofits over people and are repulsed that the mineral wealth is then sent abroad. The report suggests that the DMR’s eager enforcement of section 54 is in response to the current and historic exploitation of mineworkers.

The Mine Health and Safety Act containsprovisions that address the safety of mineworkers. The issue lies with the implementationof this statute that empowers government officials to impose mine closures when there is a safety hazard. Possible abuse of power by inspectors does not mean that all safety stoppages initiated at mines are unwarranted. Safety in mines is a major issue that should not be taken lightly. With an occupation that puts people’s lives at stake, all reasonable measures should be taken to ensure that safety is a priority at mines.