The seminar was opened by Tibor Szana outlining the objectives of the seminar. This was followed by an address by the Chief Inspector Mr Thobile Lamati.

Mr P Maphaha was the program director for the two days.

The objectives of the seminar were as follows:

  * Discuss the changes to the Construction Regulations.
  * Look at effective ways of improving health and safety in the construction industry.

Day 1:


The first presentation was about the Asbestos Regulations and was presented by Millie Ruiters from the Dol. The main focus of the presentation was around the dangers of asbestos and the need for better management of in particular the removal of asbestos from buildings particularly during demolition work.
This was followed up by a talk by Mr A Greyling who is an AIA Asbestos. His talk was also about the removal and dangers of asbestos with particular emphasis on fibre cement products i.e. asbestos cement roof sheeting.
A letter had been issued by the Dol declaring that the removal of all asbestos was to be seen as demolition work and had to be done strictly in accordance with the legislation.
The Dol are currently working on amending the Asbestos Regulations to bring it in line with International best practise.

The three speakers that followed all spoke about occupational hygiene and the importance of effective hygiene and monitoring programs in the work place. Health is a very important issue which is often ignored in favour of safety only; the general consensus was that a healthy worker would be a safer worker.
Health and hygiene monitoring programs must be risk based in order to avoid unnecessary testing and monitoring.

Dr Greg Kew highlighted the fact that the definition of a medical certificate of fitness had been left blank in the draft amendments to the Construction regulations.

The issue of who may perform medical examinations and who can sign off medical certificates remains an issue of debate and it would appear as if SAIOH and SASOM are working towards a solution to the problem.

A panel discussion took place after these presentations with the main focus being who should do the examination of a worker and who should sign off the medical certificate.

Mr Cassiem from the CIDB spoke about health and safety specifically related to small medium and micro enterprises and related the difficulties these contractors face when attempting to comply.
He spoke about the health and safety management system being piloted by the CIDB in certain areas, this management system is currently aimed at higher grade contractors. This will be rolled out over a period of time.

Day one ended with Prof. John Smallwood presenting two talks on the following topics:

  * Designing for construction health and safety and ergonomics.
  * The nature and content of health and safety specifications.

According to Prof. Smallwood very little notice is taken of OHS when buildings and structures are designed, this he believes has lead to many accidents and will lead to many more accidents if this is not addressed. Furthermore many designs do not take into consideration the future maintenance of a building and the potential OHS issues relating to maintenance.

He further contends that many toxic or dangerous products used in construction could be substituted at the design stage which would remove potential harmful products from site.

He sighted an example of poor ergonomics with the following example:

The contractor had to attach heavy marble slabs to the underside of a soffit; this not only created a very dangerous situation but also created an extremely poor ergonomic work process where workers had to work with very heavy objects above head height.

The belief is, as is legislated in the Construction Regulations that designers need to become more aware of OHS when designing buildings and that OHS specialist need to be consulted during the design phase of a building.

In terms of OHS specifications, Prof. Smallwood pulled no punches and accused the client agents of producing non specific reams of paper which are a re-gurgitation of the OHS Act and Regulations which in essence told the prospective contractors nothing about the actual project and the potential hazards and risks on the project.

He has produced a document and presents a workshop on what needs to be in a safety plan. The lack of good information is also directly linked to the in-competence of many of the agents acting on behalf of clients.

Day 2:

A spokesperson from the National Union of Mineworkers was given the opportunity to address the seminar.
He accused the employers of treating the workforce worse than animals.

He sighted issues like:

  * Poor hygiene facilities.
  * Poor living conditions on site.
  * Poor eating and changing facilities.
  * Workers being “forced” to work in unsafe areas.

Although some of the points he raised were very valid, he never once mentioned the responsibilities of the employee as defined in section 15 of the Act and basically accused contractors of budgeting for accidents and loss of life.

One of his main points raised was the lack of input from employees into the OHS programs on construction sites, his contention was “why not ask the experts who deal with many of these situations on a daily basis” their input would be of great value.

The Gauteng Provincial Director of the Dol gave a brief overview of the state of OHS in the province.

Prof. Smallwood then spoke on the following subjects:

  * The competence of construction health and safety practitioners.
  * Financial provision for health and safety.

The first topic is one which has and will spark great debate in the future as there is currently no registration process for construction OHS practitioners. This is being remedied by SACPCMP who will in the future be the body with which all construction OHS practitioners must be registered.
The process of determining the categories and the competencies required for each category is currently being done and once this process has been completed, all OHS practitioner will have to register in order to work in the industry.

With regards to financial provision for OHS, Prof. Smallwood presented numerous figures which will be available by the 24th February 2011 on the DOL web site. All the other presenters presentations will be available on the web site as well.

The final presentation for the day was around the amendments to the Construction Regulations and this was presented by Phumi Maphaha.

A technical committee has been established to deal with all the correspondence received regarding the changes and people were given a chance to voice concerns.

  * The definition of an “agent’ was one item which sparked much debate and it would appear as if the DOL are going to re look at this definition.
  * The whole issue around the permit to work was discussed and it was confirmed by the DOL that the only time a permit would be required would be if; the work exceeds 30 days or will involve more than 300 person days. (3(1)(a) of the amendments.
  * A permit will not be required for a domestic dwelling being constructed and which will be occupied by the client after completion and a safety spec will also not be required for these building projects.
  * The Dol are very confident that they will be able to issue permits well within the agreed time allocated.
  * The reference to a construction supervisor in section 6.1 is more than likely going to change. The proposal is that this person be referred to as a construction manager (CM) this would mean that all 6.1 appointees will have to be registered with the SACPCMP as a construction manager, which is a statutory requirement.

All the speakers presentations will be available on the Department of Labour web site (www.labour.gov.za) by the end of next week.


Author: Deon Bester, Health and Safety Manager, Western Cape Master Builders and Saiosh Member.