Blog

In a landmark decision that will impact workplace safety compliance across South Africa, reported as Truworths Ltd v Chief Inspector: Occupational Health and Safety: Department of Employment and Labour and Another [2025] 8 BLLR 853 (LC), the Labour Court of South Africa delivered a significant ruling on the interpretation and enforcement of workplace seating requirements under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) and its Facilities Regulations. The case revolved around whether Truworths was legally obligated to provide chairs with backrests for cashiers at its retail stores.

Background: The Inspection and Contravention Notices

Following inspections at two Truworths stores in Mpumalanga, labour inspectors issued contravention notices alleging non-compliance with section 8(b) of the Facilities Regulations. The inspectors directed Truworths to provide seats with backrests at the cash desks to allow for “opportunity sitting” – a concept aimed at enabling employees who typically work standing to sit when possible.

Truworths appealed the notices to the Chief Inspector, arguing that seating behind the cash desks was not reasonably practicable due to space constraints and the nature of cashier duties. The company maintained that seating was available elsewhere in the store for rest breaks. The Chief Inspector dismissed the appeal, prompting Truworths to escalate the matter to the Labour Court under section 35(3) of the OHSA.

Key Legal Issues Examined by the Court

Acting Judge Sean Snyman in his judgement considered several critical issues:

Inspector Certification

Truworths challenged the validity of the inspections, arguing that the inspectors lacked proper certification under section 28(2) of the OHSA. The court found that the inspectors had not produced valid certificates of designation, rendering the inspections and resulting contravention notices invalid.

Nature of the Appeal

The court held that appeals under section 35(3) of the OHSA are “wide appeals,” allowing for a complete re-hearing and the introduction of new evidence. This empowered the court to substitute its own decision for that of the Chief Inspector.

Reasonably Practicable Standard

Central to the case was the interpretation of “reasonably practicable” in the context of seating requirements. The court emphasised that this standard requires a balanced assessment of employee health and safety against operational feasibility, cost, and workplace design. In this case, cashiers could not properly serve customers while seated, and providing a chair at the cash register would constitute an obstruction. The fact that adequate seating was provided elsewhere in the store met the requirements of the regulations.

Misapplication of Regulations

The court found that the inspectors had misconstrued section 8(b) of the Facilities Regulations by dictating seating placement without considering whether it was reasonably practicable. It had also erroneously dictated that chairs with back rests should be provided to cashiers, even though their work was not performed seated. The Chief Inspector had also improperly placed the burden of proof on Truworths to justify its compliance.

The Court’s Decision

The Labour Court upheld Truworths’ appeal and set aside the contravention notices. It ruled that:

• Inspections conducted by uncertified inspectors are unlawful
• Employers are not automatically required to provide seating at workstations unless it is reasonably practicable
• Inspectors must assess the actual working conditions and feasibility before issuing directives
• The Chief Inspector failed to provide sufficient reasons and relied on irrelevant considerations in dismissing the appeal

Key Implications for Employers

This judgment reinforces the principle that compliance with OHSA must be grounded in practicality and legality. It also affirms the rights of employers to challenge enforcement actions that are procedurally or substantively flawed.

Context is always a key consideration in making recommendations or issuing directions in terms of labour regulations, and it must be remembered that it is not up to labour inspectors to dictate to a company how it must run its business, but rather to ensure that operations are in compliance with set labour standards.

For expert guidance on OHSA compliance and workplace safety matters, contact Labournet’s experienced team of labour law specialists.