Abstract
Empirical research conducted by education researchers over a period of approximately 20 years confirms that uncertainty exists whether the provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) apply to technology workshops at academic, technical and special schools; whether compliance with the safety provisions of the OHSA is lacking; and whether serious injuries at technology workshops at schools occur from time to time. A comparative study of foreign law regarding occupational safety at technology workshops at high schools confirms that many countries have national or federal occupational safety and health statutes that apply to workplaces as well as public schools, although some have specific statutes or regulations addressing occupational safety at public schools. Countries like Germany, the Netherlands and some states of the United States of America define school-going children and students as "workers" in terms of their occupational safety legislation. Germany includes all school-going children in its statutory accident insurance scheme to provide for faultless compensation in case of injury. In determining whether the OHSA applies to technical workshops at high schools, the fundamental rights, as well as its spirit and purport, must be considered through the prism of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Applying the traditional literalist-cum-intentionalist approach to the interpretation of the OHSA, the conclusion is that this Act does indeed apply to technology workshops at schools. In terms of section 60(1)(a) of the South African Schools Act state liability for damages occurring as a result of school activities does provide essential legal protection. However, the South African Schools Act, school safety policies and school infrastructure regulations do not make explicit provision for the application of health and safety standards at school premises that use potentially dangerous machinery and equipment in places such as technical workshops and science laboratories. It is therefore recommended that the OHSA, the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, the Schools Act and the School Infrastructure Regulations be amended to provide legal certainty in respect of the application of occupational safety to technical workshops at high schools.
Highlights
Introduction and the legal frameworkThe Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 deals expressly and quite prominently with the recognition of languages and the protection of the choice and use of language. 1 Section 6 of the Constitution recognises 11 official languages[2] in the Republic, and contains provisions regarding the state's duties to protect the use of these languages. 3 The state's role in the protection and advancement of languages is circumscribed with the proviso that "all official languages must enjoy parity of esteem and must be treated equitably".4Apart from the provisions regarding the recognition, protection and advancement of official languages by the state, the Bill of Rights entrenches fundamental rights for individuals and groups in respect of their choice and use of language
This contribution considers the role of language as a prohibited ground of unfair discrimination in the workplace in South Africa, an area of law that has been somewhat neglected in the literature to date
In the context of "English-only" workplace policies in the United States of America (USA) it has been observed that "some employers are rightfully concerned that the workplace will become deluged with a variety of languages, thereby impeding safety, efficiency, harmony, productivity, and possibly alienate a customer base."[84] There may very well be a variety of reasons – some justifiable – for an employer to seek uniformity in respect of language usage in the workplace, but such reasons will always be subject to strict judicial scrutiny in the face of claims of unfair discrimination
Summary
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (the Constitution) deals expressly and quite prominently with the recognition of languages and the protection of the choice and use of language. 1 Section 6 of the Constitution recognises 11 official languages[2] in the Republic, and contains provisions regarding the state's duties to protect (and, in respect of the indigenous languages, to advance) the use of these languages. 3 The state's role in the protection and advancement of languages is circumscribed with the proviso that "all official languages must enjoy parity of esteem and must be treated equitably".4. They impact on the rights to choose, to use and to enjoy a language (and, in the case of the first type of policy, possibly the freedom to associate with other users of that language) At this point it just bears mentioning, that the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of language in terms of the EEA and section 9 of the Constitution is distinct from the protection of language rights provided for by the above-quoted sections 30 and 31(1) of the Bill of Rights. In New Zealand it is recognised that employer conduct or policies which target employees' use of a first language may constitute unlawful discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnic or national origin under the Human Rights Act, 1993.35.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
