In Seriti Coal v CCMA and Others[1], the Labour Court confirmed that strict compliance with health and safety legislation is mandatory in high-risk workplaces and that supervisors bear direct and non-delegable responsibility for occupational health and safety compliance, and that dismissal is a lawful and appropriate response where that responsibility is neglected.
In a recent judgment, Seriti Coal v CCMA and Others, the Labour Court reaffirmed the strict health and safety compliance requirements in high-risk workplaces, particularly under the Mine Health and Safety Act 29 of 1996 (the MHSA). The court set aside a CCMA arbitration award that had reinstated a mine overseer and confirmed that the dismissal was fair on the basis that the serious safety breaches the mine overseer failed to address, which constituted misconduct.
Mr Rasmeni, a mine overseer under the MHSA responsible for hazard identification and safety compliance in his section, failed to act on multiple Class A safety hazards disclosed in the logbook, including a failure to install "telltales" to warn of roof collapse, and was found to have dishonestly altered the date on his inspection report. He was dismissed for misconduct, but the CCMA commissioner found dismissal too severe and ordered reinstatement with ten months' back pay. The Labour Court reviewed and set aside that award in its entirety, finding the dismissal both procedurally and substantively fair, and its reasoning is instructive on several grounds.
The court's reasoning turned on five grounds: the commissioner ignored the health and safety statutory framework engaged in the facts of the misconduct in question; Rasmeni's excuses for inaction were weak and self-serving; inconsistency of discipline does not always render a dismissal unfair; his cavalier attitude to safety was itself an operational risk; and the case carries direct implications for liability under occupational health and safety legislation generally.
Non-compliance with the statutory duties imposed on mine overseers under the MHSA is not merely misconduct; it may constitute a criminal offence, and the MHSA imposes strict liability for such non-compliance. The commissioner's failure to grapple with this framework was a material, reviewable error.
Rasmeni claimed he lacked the tools to rectify the Class A deviations promptly. The court rejected this. Rasmeni had both the authority to source tools from other sections and the means to do so. He had not raised the alleged shortage with his manager. A supervisor who had the authority to obtain what was needed cannot rely on its absence as an excuse.
Rasmeni's evident view that safety deviations were routine and "go with mining" was itself a severe ongoing operational risk. In this regard, the court cited De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd v CCMA[2]:
"Dismissal is not an expression of moral outrage; much less is it an act of vengeance. It is, or should be, a sensible operational response to risk management in the particular enterprise."
A supervisor who treats serious safety deviations as normal gives the employer good reason to dismiss.
This judgement highlights the serious considerations that employers in the mining industry, and related industries, must bear in mind, particularly the action that may reasonably be taken where employees fail to comply with health and safety requirements. The MHSA places strict and direct obligations on employers and designated supervisory personnel, such as mine overseers. The court emphasised that mine overseers are statutory appointees responsible for ensuring safety compliance within their designated areas. Their duties include identifying hazards, enforcing prescribed safety standards and ensuring that employees are not exposed to health and safety risks. Non-compliance with these obligations may constitute a criminal offence, underscoring the seriousness of the duties imposed by the MHSA. Although the matter arises within the mining context, the principles articulated by the court closely reflect those under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 85 of 1993 (the OHSA).
Whether appointed under the MHSA or occupying a supervisory role governed by the OHSA, senior employees bear direct, non-delegable duties to identify hazards, enforce standards and take corrective action. Non-compliance may carry criminal liability.
Once a serious safety deviation is identified, the obligation to act is immediate. A supervisor who fails to prioritise rectification creates legal exposure for themselves and their employer.
Safety documentation is the primary mechanism through which supervisors are informed of underground risks. Non-compliance with documentation requirements should be treated as a serious disciplinary matter. Where a supervisory or statutory appointee commits serious safety breaches or treats compliance as optional, dismissal is a lawful and appropriate operational response. Employers should not be deterred from imposing it where the facts justify it. Employers must ensure supervisors have the resources, training and authority to discharge their safety obligations. A supervisor who claims they lacked the means to act but had the authority to obtain them is unlikely to succeed before a reviewing court.
[1] Seriti Coal (Pty) Ltd ta New Denmark Colliery v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR940/2020) [2026] ZALCJHB 147 (18 May 2026)
2 (2000) 21 ILJ 1051 (LAC) at para [22].
[2] (2000) 21 ILJ 1051 (LAC) at para [22].
[1] Seriti Coal (Pty) Ltd ta New Denmark Colliery v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR940/2020) [2026] ZALCJHB 147 (18 May 2026)
[2] (2000) 21 ILJ 1051 (LAC) at para [22].
