scholarly journals Investigating the hindrances of implementation of occupational health and safety among Small Medium Enterprise’s in the Gauteng province of South Africa

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nokulunga X Mashwama ◽  
Hildah Kale ◽  
C. O. Aigbavboa
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Occupational Health ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Occupational Health And Safety ◽  
Gauteng Province

Drawing the Line between Dismissal for Alcoholism (Incapacity) and Dismissal for Drunkenness (Misconduct). Are the Boni Mores Compromised?

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
pp. 57-63
Author(s):  
Thandekile Phulu
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Economic Development ◽  
Social Justice ◽  
Occupational Health ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Occupational Health And Safety ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Labour Relations ◽  
Labour Practice ◽  
The Republic

In South Africa employees are protected by various pieces of legislation. Section 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996 provides for a right to fair labour practice. In its preamble the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (hereafter referred to as the LRA) states that the purpose of the Act is to advance economic development, social justice, labour peace and democratisation of the workplace. The LRA also states that one of its objectives is to give effect to and regulate the fundamental rights conferred by section 27 of the Constitution. The Occupational Health and Safety Act as amended by the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Act 181 of 1993 provides for the health and safety of persons at work and for the health and safety of persons in connection with the use of plant and machinery. The LRA provides for dismissal for incapacity and dismissals for misconduct. It also differentiates between the two. The LRA provides for both substantive and procedural fairness when dismissing an employee for incapacity and misconduct. This paper will examine the rationale behind differentiating between dismissal for drunkenness and dismissal for alcoholism.

Nudging for Prevention in Occupational Health and Safety in South Africa Using Fiscal Policies

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 176-188
Author(s):  
Pieter de Jager ◽  
David Rees ◽  
Sophia Kisting ◽  
Spo Kgalamono ◽  
Mpume Ndaba ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Occupational Health ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Occupational Exposures ◽  
Occupational Health And Safety ◽  
Face Validity ◽  
Fiscal Policies ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Policy Interventions

Currently, in some countries occupational health and safety policy and practice have a bias toward secondary prevention and workers’ compensation rather than primary prevention. Particularly, in emerging economies, research has not adequately contributed to effective interventions and improvements in workers’ health. This article, using South Africa as a case study, describes a methodology for identifying candidate fiscal policy interventions and describes the policy interventions selected for occupational health and safety. It is argued that fiscal policies are well placed to deal with complex intersectoral health problems and to focus efforts on primary prevention. A major challenge is the lack of empirical evidence to support the effectiveness of fiscal policies in improving workers’ health. A second challenge is the underprioritization of occupational health and safety partly due to the relatively small burden of disease attributed to occupational exposures. Both challenges can and should be overcome by (i) conducting policy-relevant research to fill the empirical gaps and (ii) reconceptualizing, both for policy and research purposes, the role of work as a determinant of population health. Fiscal policies to prevent exposure to hazards at work have face validity and are thus appealing, not as a replacement for other efforts to improve health, but as part of a comprehensive effort toward prevention.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document