Gap851 Final Report Main Body

Messrs Joseph Morallana and Eric Gcilitshana

Interviewee: Mr Joseph Morallana (JM)

Current position: Head, Health and Safety Unit, National Union of Mine Workers (NUM).

Experience:

JM has worked for NUM for the past 10 years. JM started working in the mining industry in 1984. He was employed as an underground worker by JCI at the Randfontein Estates Gold Mine. His work experience included rock drilling using Tamrock machines.

JM is an Employee Representative on the Mine Health and Safety Council (MHSC).

Interviewee: Mr Eric Gcilitshana (EG)

Current position: National Secretary for Health and Safety, National Union of Mineworkers.

Experience:

EG is an employee of Lonmin platinum mines and has been seconded to NUM for the duration of his three-year term of office as National Secretary. EG started working in the mining industry in 1985. He has worked as a labourer, loco driver, team leader and assistant in the safety department.

Both JM and EG’s experience extend beyond the gold and platinum sectors: they have visited many mines engaged in other sectors of the industry while working for NUM.

JM and EG commented that initially there was no labour representation on SIMRAC. Even once tripartism was introduced, NUM’s participation was poor owing to the technicality of many of the issues. NUM had contracted specialists such as Messrs Roger More O’Ferrall and Mike Martinsson to represent them in technical matters. While they had done a good job, this was not sustainable, as they had to be paid!

NUM seeks to participate fully in SIMRAC and the MHSC. GC and JM believe that NUM’s capacity to contribute should gradually improve, as their membership is no longer limited to the workers in grades 1 to 8, but now includes more highly skilled categories.

Date of interview: 17 March 2005

STATUS REPORT

1. FAMILIARITY WITH ROCK-RELATED RESEARCH WORK

1.1 How many reports have you read? Which have had the greatest impact on your work?

Not discussed.

1.2 How many workshops and conferences have you attended?

Not discussed.

1.3 Have you supplied researchers with information?

Neither JM nor EG were aware of any previous SIMRAC project where there had been any meaningful involvement of labour other than at the initial planning stage.

1.4 Have you hosted projects on your mine(s)?

N/A

1.5 Have you worked as a consultant to mines that have hosted research projects?

N/A

1.6 Have you been a mine/industry champion for a project?

N/A

1.7 Have you implemented research knowledge and technology?

Not discussed.

1.8 Have you personally performed research work?

N/A

1.9 Have you proposed research projects to SIMRAC?

Not discussed.

1.10 What do you think of the process used to vet research proposals?

JM and EG were generally positive regarding the content of the research programme. “It allows us to plan from an informed basis.”

1.11 What do you think of the process used to evaluate research progress and outputs?

JM and EG said that they do not think that researchers are sufficiently accountable to the structure that gives them the mandate to do work.

JM and EG commented that they are not adequately informed regarding progress: how projects are going, what hiccups are being experienced. For example, they only heard about a project dealing with Women in Mining at a seminar once the project had been completed.

1.12 How could the SIMRAC research program be improved?

The interviewer asked whether JM and EG thought that the establishment of project “steering committees including labour representatives could help. JM and EG supported the idea, but emphasized that NUM members on the individual mines should be involved, not just officials from the head office. In this way the workers will be able to give meaningful input and follow up on implementation. At present only management is aware of research work being conducted on a mine. Research is not normally discussed in the joint (management / labour) safety committees. EG emphasized that the proper channels should be used when trying to inform / involve labour in research work.

The interviewer asked JM and EG whether they regarded the Safety Representative system as effective. EG remarked that the Safety Representatives on mines do not have a uniform approach. A few Safety Representatives are sent on training courses offered by the Chamber of Mines or IRCA, though many mining companies feel that this is too expensive and give in-house training. EG noted several shortcomings of the system:

1. 
   Often the training courses are brief. For example, a one-day course is given to train the Safety Representatives on the responsibilities of the employee (section 22).
   
2. 
   “Training doesn’t empower you. Rather it threatens you. You cannot be effective.”
   
3. 
   While collective agreements may exist, Safety Representatives who are vocal are often transferred from one work place to another. GC cited several instances in support of his claim that Safety Representatives may be victimized.
   
4. 
   Some Safety Representatives have the confidence to stop work in conditions they deem to be unsafe. However, some mine bosses will engage in technical arguments with the Safety Representative, and exploit his lack of formal technical qualifications, using a qualified person to challenge the Safety Representative’s recommendations.
   
5. 
   While the potential loss of production bonuses owing to a halt in production can be issue, NUM strongly urges the Safety Representatives to engage with the underground work team and to explain why a workplace should be closed.
   
6. 
   Management sets the agenda at the monthly meeting of the Joint Health and Safety Committee. These meetings mostly discuss accident statistics.
   

The interviewer asked JM and EG whether a greater emphasis on the cost and productivity benefits of research could help implementation. EG remarked, “A safe working place is a productive working place. People are relaxed”. However, JM and EG felt that SIMRAC would lose focus if it had to consider productivity as well. Shift bosses were supposed to be responsible for safety, but had never become “safety agents” as they were really more concerned with production.

2. IMPACT OF ROCK-RELATED RESEARCH WORK

2.1 Has research work enable you to do your work better?

The interviewer asked JM and EG is they could think of any “success stories” where safety had actually improved on mines. JM said that he could not think of a single mine where he had seen meaningful improvement. EG said that there had been a period (around 2000 / 2001) when NUM had held quarterly meetings with Anglogold to discuss health and safety issues, and he felt that this had been very positive. However, since then “things had gone backwards”.

2.2 / 2.3 Has research work improved safety in the SA mining industry? / on your mines?

JM said the Leon Commission had highlighted rock-related hazards, and that a section of the Mine Health and Safety Act had introduced Codes of Practice to address rock-related safety. However, despite the substantial research effort, safety statistics do not seem to be improving. He said that while “there are good documents in the archives, generally they are not helping us. SIMRAC is doing well, but not well enough.”

2.4 How would you describe the research work carried out by SIMRAC?

Not discussed.

2.5 / 2.6 Are research products effectively transferred to practitioners and implemented on mines?

JM and EG said “at the end of the day it depends on the individual mining companies whether they buy-in on the research. Some companies claim that the outcomes are not implementable, while others take the initiative”.

The introduction of seismic monitoring systems, backfill and preconditioning were mentioned as examples of successful implementation. On the other hand, fire detectors had not been universally adopted.

JM and EG said that they questioned the ability of many mines to access SIMRAC research and to use it to their own advantage. They believed that a number of accidents could have been avoided if this had been done. In this regard, they expressed particular concern regarding contractors employed by the mines.

JM said that there is a lack of a mechanism to make sure that recommendations based on research are implemented. There is little effective technology transfer. “Perhaps the mine management knows about the project outcomes, but certainly not ordinary workers.” SIMRAC seems to be just a series of projects, and the outcomes of old projects are forgotten.

The interviewer asked JM and EG for their reaction to the opinion held by some rock engineering practitioners that the majority of rock-related accidents are due to the human factor (poor training, poor adherence to standards, risk-taking).

• 
  JM and EG agreed that a small number of accidents might be due to behaviour.
  
• 
  They also noted that torrid underground conditions (e.g. high temperatures) might cause people to take short cuts. However, the mine should be blamed for this, not the workers.
  
• 
  JM and EG commented that the Du Pont behavioral safety study seemed to focus on the worker, not on the system.
  
• 
  JM and EG referred to incidents such as the conveyor belt fire at Northam platinum mine where fatalities were caused by the lack of an escape route.
  
• 
  JM and EG also commented that support systems or layouts should be adapted to changing ground conditions (e.g. approaching a fault). However, this is often not done, and the excuse is given that this would increase costs or delay production.
  

2.7 Have SIMRAC funds been well spent?

Not discussed.

FORESIGHT REPORT

3/4 What changes do you predict will affect the SA mining industry during the next decade and what advances could help to manage the changes?

1. 
   Reduction in reserves. Ultra-deep mining will be a big challenge.
   
2. 
   Rand / dollar exchange rate.
   
3. 
   HIV/AIDS.
   
4. 
   Increased attention to occupational diseases such as silicosis. Technologies to eliminate dust must be developed.
   
5. 
   Greater use of contractors. However, standards tend to be downgraded when contractors are used.
   
6. 
   Mechanisation. This is an issue for labour as unions need members to exist! There is a tension between safety and jobs, but “we do not want to see workers going home in boxes”.
   
7. 
   Company strategies e.g. increased focus on foreign operations, black economic empowerment, and affirmative action. JM and EG commented that some mining companies promoted black staff members to meet Mining Charter targets, simultaneously downgrading the responsibilities and financial rewards attached to the jobs. JM and EC said that they had not noted any significant difference in attitude in companies that are black- or foreign controlled. Profits remained the focus of every employer. “BEE is not there to transform the industry, but to collect cheques.”
   
8. 
   Environmental impact of mining and mine closure.
   

5. What advances could significantly reduce rock-related safety risks?

1. 
   The safe mining of pillars and remnants was seen to be an important issue and deserving of proper research. It is important to be able to make proper recommendations regarding the safest way to mine a remnant, if it all.
   
2. 
   JM strongly advocated the development of a technology to predict seismicity.
   
3. 
   EG advocated the development of a technology that could be used to locate missing workers after a disaster. However, both JM and EG said that such a system must not be abused by linking it to issues other than safety e.g. to take punitive measures against workers for not being in their designated working place, as there are often good reasons for this.
   

6. What factors could improve rock-related safety?

JM said that technology transfer is a problem area. He proposed that technology transfer be included as an element in each project. It should not just be left to the researcher to do once the project is completed.

EC recommended that the same approach be used as with HIV/AIDS e.g. awareness campaigns.

7. NEED FOR ROCK-RELATED RESEARCH

7.1 Should research work continue in SA?

JM and EG both said “Yes, SIMRAC should continue until accidents are eliminated, but not in its current form (see comments made in the course of this interview).”

7.2 Should research effort be increased significantly?

JM noted that the budget for rock-related research had declined “for good reason.” Too much focus had been initially put on safety issues at the expense of health issues. NUM supported this change of emphasis, though this does not mean that safety research must be abandoned!

7.3 Do we have the research competency?

Not discussed.

7.4 Do we have the research capacity?

EG emphasized that human capacity must be developed though the SIMRAC programme. This should not only include researchers - people at all levels could benefit through their involvement in projects. JM said that he saw capacity building as part of the transfer of technology to people at the “coal face”.

7.4 Do we have the research facilities?

Not discussed.

7.6 Should the focus be on implementation rather than on more research?

JM said that technology transfer is a problem area, and proposed that it be included as an element in each project. It should not just be left to the researcher to do once the project is completed.

7.7 Should research work be abandoned?

See 7.1 above.

7.8 Would stricter enforcement have a greater impact than more research work?

Not discussed.