Ruling opens accident inquiry reports

Six years after a fire at the Paarl Print Factory left 13 people dead and 10 injured, Judge Elias Matojane’s groundbreaking ruling paved the way for interested parties to receive access to accident inquiry reports.

In the North Gauteng High Court, he ordered that interested parties may in future receive a copy of an inquiry report into workplace accidents, on request to the presiding inspector of the Department of Labour, reports IOL.

The Department of Labour had refused to hand over the report into the blaze at the factory on April 17, 2009.

Paarl Print factory fire

The fire at the factory spread rapidly and four hours later, about 90 percent of the warehouse, which operated as a printing factory for about 30 years, was destroyed. An initial investigation concluded that heat from cooking oil in a chip fryer caused the fire. The oil apparently self-ignited.

The department stated that the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) did not allow for interested parties to have access to the report into the inquiry.

It said disclosure to anyone other than the chief inspector and the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) would violate the principles of co-operative governance enshrined in the constitution.

It was further said that because employees injured on duty, or the dependents of those who died as a result of injury on duty, were not entitled to sue their employer for damages arising from the incident, they did not need access to the report.

The families, together with the Industrial Health Resource Group (IHRG) of UCT, turned to the high court in Pretoria to force Labour Minister Mildred Oliphant to make public inquiry reports regarding findings into workplace accidents.

Access to workplace accident inquiry reports

Judge Matojane said the government’s interpretation of the OHSA undermined constitutional values of transparency and accountability.

He said the constitution provided that everyone had the right of access to information held by the state. In withholding the information, the state had deprived interested parties of their right to dignity.

The judge said the families and next of kin of workers killed in industrial accidents would never be able to find closure if they were not able to gain access to these reports.

“Without access to the reports, employers and trade unions are also hampered in their ability to ensure health and safety.

It will not be possible for unions to adequately protect their members’ interests by advocating for reform and improvement of safety in the workplace…”

Judge Matojane said receiving these inquiry reports would allow employees and unions to hold employers accountable by ensuring they complied with the recommendations and findings contained in the report.

Under the OHSA, aggrieved parties may appeal the findings of these inquiry reports. But the judge said it was “absurd” to say parties may appeal, while at the same time they were denied access to the report.

Judge Matojane declared that the department’s policy of refusing access to a section 32 inquiry report in all instances, and without regard to the circumstances of each case once the report was referred to the NPA, was inconsistent with OHSA and the Promotion of Access to Information Act.

Source: IOL.co.za

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Share

One thought on “Ruling opens accident inquiry reports

  1. This is probably the most important ruling any court has ever made in respect of Health and Safety. And it has serious implications for the Dept of Labour.
    In the past it would have been quite easy to do an investigation and blame the public prosecutor’s office for failing to take action. Everything was done in line with DOL policy and the “sub judice” rule. The DOL could not disclose the reports as it was “under investigation”.
    What will happen now, is that advocates and attorneys, like the “infamous to many” Richard Spoor can get access to these reports and initiate civil actions.
    The Criminal Procedures Act also allows for “private criminal prosecutions” where the state fails to initiate actions and the court approves a private prosecution under criminal law.
    It is thus imperative that the DOL beef up their skills in preparing case reports to present to the Public prosecutor’s office. The latter is also blaming the DOL for the poor quality of their submissions and lack of proper evidence and procedural inaccuracies. This result in many employers getting off on a “technicality”.
    This is is often the result of a recommendation to prosecute where the incorrect section or regulation is used as the basis for the contravention and the required intent or duty is misunderstood. There are many regulations that are not directly linked to the penalty clauses in the Act and requires careful consideration before it is referred to.
    Sadly, this is not something new, and has been the plight of the DOL for a very long time. The inspectors do not understand criminal law, and the prosecutors do not understand Health & Safety. Tip Tap Toe!!!

Comments are closed.

close
Facebook IconLinkedInLinkedInLinkedIn
error: Contact the Cygma Group for Copyright licence.