PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
WRITTEN REPLY
QUESTION NO: 1583
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 9 October 2009
QUESTION PAPER NO: 20
DATE OF REPLY: 16 October 2009
Mr N J van den Berg (DA) to ask the Minister of Communications:
1) Whether all (a)(i) offices and (ii) sites of his department and (b)
entities reporting to him adhere to the Occupational Health and Safety
Act, Act 85 of 1993; if not, (aa) why not, (bb) which facilities fail
to adhere to the Act, (cc) where are they situated, (dd) what (aaa)
aspects of the Act does each such facility not comply with and (bbb)
action has been taken in each case; if so, what are the relevant
details;
2) (a) how often should each facility be inspected and (b) when last was
each facility inspected?
NW1989E
REPLY:
1) (a)(i) and (ii) The Department complies the Occupational Health and
Safety Act.
⢠A compliance audit was conducted in 2007 and an implementation plan
approved by the Director-General to become the reference point for
implementation.
⢠The Section 16(2) appointees have been nominated in order to ensure
the implementation of the OHS activities;
⢠Safety representatives were also nominated in all the offices.
⢠The security personnel inspect the premises on an ongoing basis and
reports any hazardous conditions for attention to be addressed.
⢠All buildings occupied by the DoC belong to the separate landlords who
also share the responsibility in regards to the OHS functions, such as
the distribution and maintenance of fire extinguishing devices within
the buildings. These devices are satisfactory maintained and
refilled/inspected annually in accordance with the Act.
⢠The Department developed a draft Emergency Plan. While finalizing
this plan there are procedures set by the landlord in Pretoria with
regards to Evacuation Plans and other emergency drills, which are also
practiced periodically.
(b) With regards to the entities reporting to the Minister of
Communications, attached are individual replies from NEMISA, the SABC,
SAPO, USAASA and Sentech. ICASA also provided a reply.
2) No inspection has been conducted at the Pretoria offices as this is
the prerogative of the Inspectorate Organisations. ISSA is regularly
inspected by the landlord, Denel Properties.
Information regarding the inspection of entities reporting to the
Minister of Communications and ICASA, please refer to the attached
replies.
REPLY FROM USAASA ON PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION 1583
1) (b) USAASA has five offices in various provinces, including the Head
Office. Not all of these offices comply with or adhere to the
Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1193.
(aa) USAASA is in the process of finalising their Occupational Health
and Safety (OHS) Policy guidelines. Once this is completed by the end
of November 2009, the responsibility for Occupational Health and
Safety will be delegated to all Unit Heads and Managers
(bb) ICASA head office and its 4 regional offices do not adhere fully
with the Act.
(cc) These offices are situated in -
⢠Midrand (Head office)
⢠Umlazi Â
⢠Port Elizabeth
⢠Cape Town
⢠Bloemfontein
⢠Polokwane
(dd) (aaa) There is no OHS Committee exist, and hence no training
could be done. However, 3 employees were trained on First Aid during
the current financial year. There are no procedures and visible
instructions for staff on reporting and dealing with possible fire
outbreaks. A fire drill was not conducted in the past 2 years.
(bbb) The Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Policy guidelines
are being finalised and should be completed by the end of
November 2009. Following this the OHS Committee and OHS
representatives will be appointed. Health and Safety training
is already prioritized in the Agency Capacity Building Plans and
is expected to be completed by March 2010. An internal
communication plan on Health and Safety will be conducted by
December 2009.
2) (a) and (b) No inspections were conducted. Inspections and fire
drills will be prioritised after the finalisation of the OHS Policy
guidelines.
REPLY FROM NEMISA ON PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION 1583
1) (b) NEMISA adheres to Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1993.
2) (a) NEMISA is inspected on a Quarterly basis.
b) The last inspection was done on the 12 August 2009.
REPLY FROM SABC ON PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION 1583
3) (b) The SABC does not comply fully with the Occupational Health and
Safety Act, 1993
(aa) The SABCâs Occupational Health and Safety Team is not
functioning effectively, due to factors such as resignations by team
members, retirement of trained personal responsible for this work and
limited resources.
(bb) ICASA head office and its 4 regional offices do not adhere fully
with the Act.
(cc) These offices are situated in Auckland Park; Bisho;
Bloemfontein, Kimberley, Platfontein; Cape Town (Sea Point, Parliament
and TV OB facility); Durban; George; Mafikeng; Nelspruit;
Pietermaritzberg; Polokwane, Thoyandau; Port Elizabeth; Pretoria; and
Richardâs Bay
(dd) (aaa) During the safety compliance audits over the last few
years a number of common compliance issues have been identified. They
are:
⢠Risk Assessments: There is no risk assessment strategy or approach
nor are risk assessments conducted across the SABCâs centres.
⢠Responsible person: The responsible person for occupational health
and safety in some the regions are not OHS qualified. Occupational
health and safety is also not part of his/her key performance areas
(KPAâs).
⢠Training: Training in occupational health and safety in the regions
is limited and in some centres not conducted.
⢠Biological Monitoring: Some centres have not conducted biological
monitoring to determine noise levels, air quality and light
quality.
⢠Housekeeping: Housekeeping in all the centres is a concern. The
stacking and storage programme is not implemented in some regions.
⢠Legal safety appointments: Some nominated staff in Occupational
Health and Safety are not officially appointed to execute their
Occupational Health and Safety duties. Others have resigned
⢠Emergency procedures: No updated emergency procedures are in place
in some centres, such as for evacuation due to fire.
⢠Safety Committees: Improper functioning of some Safety Committees
(dd) (bbb) The following actions have been taken:
⢠Risk Assessments: In Auckland Park certain business units have
started to conduct risk assessments.
⢠Responsible person: The OHS staff at Auckland Park has been
trained.
⢠Training: Training in occupational health and safety in the regions
is is being addressed.
⢠Emergency procedures: A Disaster Management Plan for Auckland Park
has been prepared and was discussed at Group Executive in April
2009. The plan needs to be discussed with identified internal
stakeholders for input and thereafter an integrated plan will be
compiled. The plan then needs to be submitted to the Group
Executive and the Joint Planning Committee (JPC) for final
approval. There after it will be communicated to staff.
⢠Safety Committees: The Group Executive committee took a resolution
at the meeting of 23rd September to have one Executive to drive
Compliance across the organization and to have plan to minimise
risks identified in the reports.
4) (a) In respect of how often each SABC facility should be inspected,
then this is not stipulated under the Occupational Health and Safety
Act 1993. However, under the Regulations certain parts of building
infrastructure do have to be checked on a regular basis.
(b) The last inspections of the SABC facilities are as follows:
Auckland Park: 2005
Bisho: 2009
Bloemfontein, Kimberley, Platfontein: 2009
Cape Town (Sea Point, Parliament and TV OB facility): (2009)
Durban: 2009
George: information not available
Mafikeng: 2009
Richardâs Bay: information not available
Pietermaritzberg: information not available
Polokwane and Thoyandau: information not available
Port Elizabeth: 2009
Pretoria: information not available
Nelspruit: 2009
REPLY FROM SAPO ON PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION 1583
1) (b) SAPO is not fully compliant to the standards as prescribed by the
Occupational Health and Safety Act in certain of its facilities.
aa) This is primarily due to a historical backlog in planned
maintenance projects which was a result of funding constraints
during the period when SAPO was not profitable. This limited our
ability to cater for all OHSA challenges SAPO faced.
ab) The following facilities do no comply with the Act:
⢠Retail outlets
⢠Depots
⢠Regional offices
⢠Area offices
⢠Mail centers/hubs
ac) These facilities are situated in the following regions:
⢠Central Region
⢠Eastern Cape Region
⢠KwaZulu-Natal Region
⢠Western Cape Region
⢠Northern Region
⢠Wits Region
ad) (aaa) These facilities do not comply with the following aspects
of the Act:
⢠Failure to create, maintain and ensure a safe, healthy and
comfortable working environment due to dilapidated state of
building or workplace
⢠Workplaces without supply of water
⢠Workplaces without toilet facilities
⢠Workplace is not adequately ventilated including those with
extremely high temperatures.
It should be noted that the above-mentioned non-compliance vary
from facility to facility.
(bbb) Remedial steps to rectify these type of contraventions
are ongoing and should be eradicated by March 2010. Ongoing
maintenance projects will be carried out and will include
replacing of prefabricated structures, upgrading of dilapidated
buildings, replacing of old roof structures, repainting
buildings, installing air conditioners or replacing old air
conditioning units, replacing floors, providing ablution
facilities where not available, upgrading of old counters,
replacing old signage, provision of ramps and other general OHS
Act building regulations related repairs.
An OHSA compliance assessment project (audit) was undertaken
during 2007 to determine the scope of work required for selected
buildings. A total of 1,521 work places were identified as
requiring refurbishment. Of these, 670 (243 owned and 427
rented) buildings were prioritized.
2) (a) and (b) Ongoing investigation and research into areas of non-
compliance on all buildings occupied by SAPO are conducted to ensure that
SAPO adheres to its licence requirements, OHS Act requirements as well as
its social responsibility obligations. This is also aimed to support
SAPOâs vision to improve the image of the company and drive their
objectives to meeting their shareholdersâ expectations and ensure a
completely compliant and regulatory governed environment within all SAPO
buildings.
REPLY FROM SENTECH ON PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION 1583
1) (b) Sentech, as a State-owned enterprise, adheres to the requirements
of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1993 (Act 85 of 1993). The
companyâs compliance to the Act is captured in the Sentech Annual and
Sustainability Report for the year ended 31 March 2009. Sentech
complies with, among others, the following important requirements of
the Act :-
⢠All operations are governed by Health and Safety Policy;
⢠Appointment and utilisation of Health and Safety Representatives in
each region;
⢠Effective Health and Safety Committees in each region;
⢠Employee Training and Awareness on Health and Safety matters;
⢠Incident Reporting and Investigation;
⢠Compliance with Construction Regulations; and
⢠A dedicated office responsible for the coordination of Occupational
Health and Safety requirements in the workplace.
The Board of Directors, as the Accounting Authority, receive reports
on health and safety programmes on quarterly basis and take remedial
action as deemed necessary.
2) (a) and (b) Sentech facilities are inspected regularly by Line
Management, Health and Safety Representatives and Health and Safety
Specialist to ensure compliance with the Occupational Health and
Safety Act, 1993 (Act 85 of 1993).
REPLY FROM ICASA ON PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION 1583
5) (b) ICASA has five offices in various provinces, including the Head
Office. Not all of these offices comply with or adhere to the
Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1193.
(aa) All ICASA offices are leased and all attempts were made to
encourage the landlords to improve the structures to meet the
requirements of the OHS Act. This process was later put on hold after
the decision was taken by the Executive Management and the Council to
relocate all ICASA offices.
(bb) ICASA head office and its 4 regional offices do not adhere fully
with the Act.
(cc) These offices are situated in -
⢠Sandton (Head Office as well as Johannesburg and Pretoria
regions)
⢠Cape Town
⢠Port Elizabeth
⢠Bloemfontein Durban
(dd) (aaa) These offices do not comply to following aspects of this
Act:
i) Head Office (which also houses the Johannesburg and Pretoria
Regions)
These offices are housed in four blocks. There are no ramps
in Blocks A & B, while there are no no lifts in Blocks C and
D.
Two of the four blocks have no lifts and two of the while
the remaining two blocks do not have. However these blocks
have ramps on the ground floor giving access to disabled
persons to that floor only but no access to the other floor.
The blocks fitted with lifts do not have ramps.
ii) Regional offices
There are no ramps at the Port Elizabeth and Bloemfontein
offices. There are no ramp and lifts at Cape Town office.
There is no fire detection system in the Durban Office.
(dd) (bbb) As all these offices are being leased all
attempts were made to encourage the landlords to improve the
structures to meet the requirements of the Act. This process was
later put on hold after the decision was taken by the Executive
Management and the Council to relocate all ICASA offices.
However all these non-adherence have been catered for in the new
terms of reference of the new offices.
6) (a) Quarterly inspections are conducted by Health and Safety
representatives.
(b) The last inspection by Health and Safety representatives was on
26Â February 2009.