Safety breach dismissal is a critical issue in South Africa’s industrial sector, where high-risk environments make safety non-negotiable. Strict adherence to health and safety procedures is more than just policy — it’s a matter of life and death. These essential protocols, often referred to as “Rules of Life”, act as foundational safeguards against serious injury or fatality. A recent Labour Court judgment, Sibanye Rustenburg Platinum Mines v CCMA and Others (JR122/23) [2025], underscores the gravity of violating these rules. The case highlights how breaches of core safety procedures not only threaten lives but also impact employers’ statutory obligations and the need to maintain a culture of accountability.
Rules of Life and Safety Protocols in the South African Industrial Sector
In the South African industrial sector, particularly in mining, manufacturing, and heavy engineering, safety protocols are not discretionary – they are legally mandated and operationally critical. Employers are bound by a plethora of statutes, including, but not limited to, statutes like the Mine Health and Safety Act 29 of 1996 and the Occupational Health and Safety Act 85 of 1993. These statutes allow employers to create and maintain a working environment that is safe and without risk to the health of employees.
Within this legal framework, many companies implement internal “Rules of Life” – a set of uncompromising, high-risk safety rules designed to prevent catastrophic incidents such as fatalities, electrocutions, equipment entrapments, and explosions.
These rules typically include procedures such as lockout-tagout (LOTO), working at heights protocols, confined space entry controls, and energy isolation measures. Breaching these rules not only places the individual at immediate risk but can endanger others and cause irreparable harm to operations.
The “Rules of Life” are typically positioned as non-negotiable, zero-tolerance safety standards, and for good reason – they target behaviours with the highest potential for fatal or life-altering consequences.
These are not routine infractions but high-severity violations that carry grave consequences, often forming the basis for summary dismissal, even for first-time offenders. Courts and arbitrators have increasingly recognised that in high-risk sectors, the nature of the misconduct itself – especially when it undermines critical safety systems – can justify dismissal, regardless of the employee’s prior record or years of service.
This is not only to protect lives but also to uphold the employer’s statutory obligation to ensure a reasonably safe workplace, and to maintain the integrity of the safety culture in environments where one mistake can cost a life.
Case Study
In Sibanye Rustenburg Platinum Mines v CCMA and Others, a long-serving artisan electrician was dismissed for breaching a critical safety protocol – failing to apply the mandatory lockout procedure before restarting a conveyor belt. This conduct violated the mine’s “Rules of Life”, a set of non-negotiable safety rules aimed at preventing serious harm or fatality.
Although the employee admitted to the breach, he claimed it was unnecessary under the circumstances. The CCMA upheld the finding of misconduct but overturned the dismissal, ordering reinstatement with a final written warning.
The Labour Court, on review, found that the commissioner failed to properly consider the seriousness of the safety breach, the potential for harm, and the employer’s legal duty to maintain a safe working environment. It held that the commissioner’s reasoning was irrational, particularly in accepting a “plausible excuse” for a rule that allows no exceptions, and that dismissal was a proportionate response in a high-risk industrial context.
The court substituted the CCMA’s award with a finding that the dismissal was substantively fair.
Conclusion
In high-risk industrial environments, safety cannot be compromised – not by convenience, not by experience, and not even by good intentions. “Rules of Life” and safety protocols exist precisely because the margin for error in the industrial sector is razor-thin, and the consequences of non-compliance can be irreversible. Employers carry a heavy legal and moral duty to enforce these protocols consistently, and the courts have affirmed that dismissal may be the only appropriate sanction when such rules are breached. Disciplinary action for safety violations is not about punishing the individual, but largely about preserving the collective safety of a company’s workforce, protecting operations, and reinforcing a culture where safety is absolute.
