Understanding the General Machinery Regulations (GMR) in South Africa

Key Insights on the Draft GMR

The General Machinery Regulations (GMR) have been in their current form since 1988. In recognition of technological and regulatory changes, the Department of Employment and Labour (DOEL), through the Technical Committee, revised the regulations and issued a draft for public comment on 22 August 2025.

As one of the most important sets of regulations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), the GMR affects every industry that uses machinery, including manufacturing, utilities, FMCG, heavy industry, and even small businesses.

At Palucraft, we reviewed the draft regulations clause by clause, line by line. We compared the existing GMR, the OHS Act, the OHS Amendment Bill, and all other recently updated regulations.

What we found was a mix of positive improvements, long-standing gaps, and several critical shortcomings that, if left unaddressed, could undermine compliance, enforcement, and workplace safety nationwide.

In this article, we share 21 key observations, concerns, and recommendations drawn from our detailed analysis. These points highlight:

• Inconsistencies

• Missing definitions

• Outdated provisions

• Alignment issues with the OHS Act

• Opportunities to modernise the GMR in line with current engineering practice, ISO standards, and South Africa’s broader regulatory framework

  
  

Our goal is not only to critique but to contribute constructively.

A formal submission of the comments was made to the Department as part of the public participation process, which forms a crucial foundation for strengthening the final version of the GMR.

If you are an engineer, GMR 2(1) appointee, safety practitioner, legal compliance manager, OHS consultant, or employer who operates machinery, this analysis will help you understand:

• Where the draft GMR aligns with best practice

• Where it introduces risk or uncertainty

• Which improvements must be made before final publication

• How these changes may affect your workplace responsibilities in the future

  
  

Below are the 21 key issues we identified, along with why addressing them is essential for a safer, clearer, and more future-ready regulatory framework for all South African workplaces that use machinery.

Observations and Recommendations

1. Competent Person Definition

Observation: Regulation 1 competent person definition Paragraphs (a) and (b) correctly require “practical experience in the operation, maintenance, and safety appropriate to the class of machinery.”

Paragraph (c) (“is a certificated engineer”) omits this requirement. Certificated engineers may be mechanical or electrical. Furthermore, industries vary significantly, and the "class of machinery" differs in complexity, risk, and regulatory obligations. Without specifying relevant experience, the clause may lead to inappropriate legal appointments.

Proposal: Amend paragraph (c) to read: “is a certificated engineer who has practical experience in the operation, maintenance, and safety appropriate to the class of machinery he or she is required to supervise.”

Motivation: The proposal ensures that:

• Certificated engineers have demonstrable competence in the specific machinery they supervise.

• Inappropriate appointments are prevented.

• There is alignment with the Engineering Council of South Africa's (ECSA) Identification of Engineering Work Regulations and competence principles, maintaining the integrity of the GCC and regulatory framework as envisioned in the Certificate of Competency Regulations.

  
  

2. Definition of Machinery

Observation: Regulation 1 does not include a definition of “Machinery,” which is inconsistent with other OHS regulations. The omission is problematic because it breaks consistency with the format and completeness of other regulations.

Proposal: Insert the definition of “Machinery” as contained in the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Section 1, into Regulation 1 of the draft GMR.

Motivation: Including the definition ensures:

• Clarity

• Alignment with other OHS regulations

• Consistency in application and enforcement

• Prevents ambiguity around what constitutes “machinery,” especially in diverse industrial sectors.

  
  

3. Appointment Letter Submission

Observation: Regulation 2(1) correctly states that machinery crossing provincial borders is deemed to be on one premises. However, it does not specify which province’s chief director should receive the appointment letter, creating administrative and legal uncertainty.

Proposal: Add a clause specifying the appropriate jurisdiction, e.g., “Where machinery crosses provincial borders and is deemed one premises, the employer must submit the GMR 2(1) appointment letter to the chief director provincial operations in the province of the employer’s head office or principal place of business.”

Motivation: This proposal ensures:

• Clarity and consistency in the submission of GMR 2(1) appointments for national infrastructure operators.

• It prevents conflicting interpretations, improves compliance, and supports the intention of Regulation 2(1).

  
  

4. Redundant Regulations

Observation: Regulation 2(1) requires the employer to “in writing designate a competent person.” Regulation 2(3) then repeats the exact requirement. This duplication adds no legal value and creates unnecessary repetition.

Proposal: Delete Regulation 2(3) entirely.

Motivation: The proposal eliminates redundancy and improves clarity and consistency in the regulation.

5. Approval of GMR 2(1) Appointees

Observation: The old GMR Regulation 2(6) allowed the Chief Inspector to approve GMR 2(1) appointees who did not hold mechanical or electrical engineering qualifications. The draft GMR removes this provision entirely, creating significant challenges.

Proposal: Reinstate a clause equivalent to the old Regulation 2(6), allowing the Chief Inspector to approve suitably experienced and qualified persons for GMR 2(1) appointments without requiring a Section 40 exemption.

Motivation: This proposal restores necessary flexibility for employers while ensuring competent appointments.

6. Voluntary GMR 2(1) Appointments

Observation: Regulation 2(9) excludes specific categories of machinery from requiring a statutory GMR 2(1) appointment. However, many employers make voluntary GMR 2(1) appointments for these excluded machinery types.

Proposal: Add a clause requiring that voluntary GMR 2(1) appointments must be submitted to the Department in the same manner as mandatory appointments.

Motivation: This proposal provides administrative clarity and formally recognises good industry practice.

7. Jewellery and Ornament Regulations

Observation: Regulation 5(3) prohibits the wearing of “jewellery or ornament” without recognising that some employees wear religious or traditional items.

Proposal: Amend Regulation 5(3) to allow religious or traditional jewellery or ornaments where they can be safely wrapped, covered, secured, or otherwise made safe based on the employer’s risk assessment.

Motivation: This proposal ensures compliance with the South African Constitution and prevents discrimination disputes.

8. Penalties and Enforcement

Observation: Regulation 9 stipulates penalties of “imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months,” which is inconsistent with the current OHS Act.

Proposal: Remove the specific penalties in Regulation 9 and replace them with: “Penalties and offences shall be in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act.”

Motivation: This proposal ensures alignment with the OHS Act and improves enforceability.

9. Modernising Safeguarding Requirements

Observation: Regulation 3 on the safeguarding of machinery remains written in an outdated style and does not reflect modern safeguarding principles.

Proposal: Replace Regulation 3 with a modern safeguarding clause that incorporates ISO-based risk assessment and guarding design principles.

Motivation: This proposal ensures the regulation aligns with modern machinery safety practices.

10. Operator Competence and Training

Observation: Regulation 4 focuses on traditional supervision and operator behaviour but does not include modern requirements for operator competence.

Proposal: Insert a modernised clause requiring operator training and competency assessment.

Motivation: This proposal aligns regulation with modern industrial practice and improves safety outcomes.

11. Lockout/Tagout (LOTO) Requirements

Observation: Regulation 5 does not include any requirements for lockout/tagout, energy isolation, or verification of zero energy.

Proposal: Replace Regulation 5 with a modern isolation and LOTO clause.

Motivation: This proposal ensures worker safety and aligns the regulation with modern international standards.

12. Incident Reporting Requirements

Observation: Regulation 7 duplicates and narrows the incident reporting requirements already contained in the OHS Act.

Proposal: Replace Regulation 7 with a simple clause: “Machinery-related incidents shall be reported in accordance with Section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.”

Motivation: This proposal ensures legal alignment and prevents under-reporting.

13. Communication and Documentation

Observation: Regulation 8 requires employers to physically display a copy of the GMR, which is outdated.

Proposal: Amend Regulation 8 to allow both physical posting and electronic access to the regulations.

Motivation: This proposal aligns with modern digital safety systems and enhances accessibility.

14. Schedule B Updates

Observation: Schedule B is outdated and inconsistent with modern machinery safety practices.

Proposal: Replace Schedule B with a modern safe-work-on-machinery framework.

Motivation: This proposal aligns the GMR with modern engineering and safety standards.

15. Contractor Obligations

Observation: The Draft GMR does not include any provisions for contractors, subcontractors, or temporary workers.

Proposal: Insert a dedicated clause specifying contractor and service provider obligations.

Motivation: This proposal ensures alignment with the OHS Act and strengthens safety governance.

16. Maintenance Personnel Competency

Observation: The Draft GMR does not define competency requirements for maintenance personnel.

Proposal: Insert a dedicated clause defining competency requirements for maintenance personnel.

Motivation: This proposal aligns GMR with modern OHS regulatory frameworks.

17. Competency Clarification

Observation: Regulation 2(6)(a) requires the appointment of a “competent” person but does not clarify competency.

Proposal: Clarify competency by explicitly stating that it aligns with other regulations.

Motivation: This proposal ensures clarity and consistency in the GMR.

18. Definition of Competent Person

Observation: The Draft GMR’s definition of “competent person” omits key wording used in modern OHS regulations.

Proposal: Align the definition of “competent person” with that used in other modern regulations.

Motivation: This proposal ensures consistency across OHS regulations.

19. Working on Moving Machinery

Observation: Regulation 5(1) permits only a “competent person” to work on moving machinery, creating ambiguity.

Proposal: Introduce a separate task-based definition of “competent person.”

Motivation: This proposal ensures clarity and aligns with modern regulatory standards.

Conclusion

The Draft General Machinery Regulations represent an essential step in modernising machinery safety in South Africa. However, the analysis above shows that significant work remains before the regulations can fully support the country’s evolving industrial landscape.

The gaps we identified highlight the need for a more integrated, risk-based, and future-ready regulatory framework. By aligning the GMR more closely with Occupational Health and Safety Management System (OHSMS) principles, South Africa can ensure that the regulations support both legal compliance and practical safety improvement.

At Palucraft, we remain committed to supporting this process and empowering industry stakeholders to understand, interpret, and implement these regulations effectively.