Essential Services Door Closes for Heavy Industry; New Bill Criminalises Unregistered Science Practice

The Department of Science, Technology and Innovation has published the Natural Scientific Professions Bill, 2026, for public comment. The Bill provides for the continued existence of SACNASP under a new governance framework with a Ministerial-appointed Board, and makes it a criminal offence — punishable by fine or up to 12 months' imprisonment — for any person to practise in a prescribed natural science field without registration. Registered persons must comply with a code of conduct, pay annual fees (with cancellation following 60 days' non-payment), and acquire prescribed continuing professional development points within specified periods or face cancellation. Voluntary associations must apply for recognition and renew every five years. The Bill repeals the Natural Scientific Professions Act, 2003 (Act 27 of 2003). Existing registrations under the 2003 Act are preserved by transitional provisions. Overlap provisions are relevant for engineers, architects, quantity surveyors, and property valuers who perform natural science work.

ArcelorMittal sought to have its blast furnace and coke battery operations designated as essential services under section 213 of the LRA, arguing that an uncontrolled shutdown during a strike would expose on-site workers to life-threatening hazards including molten metal spills, toxic gas releases, and structural damage. The Essential Services Committee and the Labour Court both refused the designation. ArcelorMittal appealed.

The court held: The LAC dismissed the appeal. It held that 'any part of the population' refers to the general public or a segment thereof, not employees at a specific workplace. The risks identified by ArcelorMittal were occupational hazards affecting on-site workers and could not, without impermissible expansion, be interpreted to encompass a significant portion of the population. The court endorsed ILO guidance that essential services are those provided to the population at large (hospitals, firefighting, police) and confirmed that a restrictive interpretation must be adopted to avoid impermissibly limiting the constitutionally entrenched right to strike. The court also noted that ArcelorMittal had not pursued available alternative mechanisms such as collective agreements to extend the 48-hour strike notice period.

Legal impact: This judgment definitively forecloses the argument that occupational hazards to a company's own workforce can ground an essential services designation under section 213 of the LRA. Employers in steel, petrochemical, and other continuous-process industries cannot use workplace safety risks during strikes to restrict the right to strike via essential services designation. They must instead pursue alternative mechanisms — minimum service agreements under section 72 of the LRA, or collective agreements extending the 48-hour strike notice period — to manage safe shutdown during protected strikes.