South African mineworkers' perspectives on the right to refuse dangerous work and the constraints to worker self-regulation

Abstract

Ensuring that mineworkers act on their duties and responsibilities for health and safety remains a concern across the globe.Article 13 of the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention Safety and Health in Mines (176 of 1995) entrenched the Right to Refuse Dangerous Work (RRDW) as an important mechanism through which workers act in the best interests of their own occupational health and safety (OHS) and is considered a cornerstone of worker self-regulation (ILO, 1995).Countries ratifying Convention 176 are under obligation to make this right available to workers through OHS legislation that frames the circumstances, procedure, and protection of workers from discrimination in the event of a formal work refusal.The Convention has been ratified by 31 countries, with South Africa becoming a signatory in June 2000 (ILO, 2000).Worldwide studies show that workers use this right with caution (Hilgert, 2013) and cases associated with work refusal are rarely presented in court (Gunningham, 2007; Cooper, 2013).Rather, in cases of formal notification of a work refusal, issues arising out of this are addressed either in the immediate workplace or through the site OHS system and/or at industrial tribunals or similar mechanisms (Harcourt and Harcourt, 2000).This paper explores the perspectives of South African mineworkers of the implementation of the RRDW and the consequent constraints to worker selfregulation.It considers the applicability of a typology of worker resistance to unsafe work to the findings of a study commissioned in