Sei sulla pagina 1di 176

MAPUA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AT LAGUNA

Academic Year 2015-2016

CORRELATION ON APPLICATION OF SAFETY MANAGEMENT


IN SELECTED CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES WITHIN LAGUNA
AND THE SEVERITY OF ACCIDENT

Angelico Mangubat AGGASID


Romar Biacora ARCEDO
Myla Claveria MANDANAS

Thesis Adviser: Engr. Hermie M. Del Pilar

Submitted to the Faculty of Malayan Colleges Laguna


In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of

Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering


The capstone project attached hereto, entitled “CORRELATION ON APPLICATION
OF SAFETY MANAGEMENT IN SELECTED CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES
WITHIN LAGUNA AND THE SEVERETY OF ACCIDENT”, prepared and
submitted by Angelico Mangubat Aggasid, Romar Biacora Arcedo and Myla Claveria
Mandanas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science
in Civil Engineering is hereby accepted.

DR. JOSEPH BERLIN P. JUANZON ARCH. LESLIE OLLIE C.


CATALUNA
Panel Chair Panel Member

_______________ _______________
Date Signed Date Signed

ENGR. HERMIE M. DEL PILAR


Adviser

_______________
Date Signed

ENGR. HERMIE M. DEL PILAR


Program Chair, CE

_______________
Date Signed

ENGR. MARIBEL G. SONGSONG


Dean, Mapua Institute of Technology at Laguna

_______________
Date Signed
Copyright

“The author and the adviser authorize consultation and partial reproduction of this thesis

for personal use. Any other reproduction or use is subject to copyright protection.

Citation should clearly mention the reference of this work.

Malayan Colleges Laguna, May 2016

The Adviser The Authors:

Engr. Hermie M. Del Pilar Angelico M. Aggasid

Romar B. Arcedo

Myla C. Mandanas

i
Biographical Sketch

ANGELICO MANGUBAT AGGASID was born on October 13, 1993 in Santiago City,

Isabela. He finished his primary education in General Trias Memorial Elementary School

(GTMES) graduating as the Valedictorian and his secondary education in Colegio de San

Francisco (CSF) graduating with honors. He is currently taking up Bachelor of Science in

Civil Engineering at Malayan Colleges Laguna and is residing in Camachile Subdivision

General Trias, Cavite. He is a member of the Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers

(PICE) – MCL student chapter and actively participating in Civil Engineering Seminars.

ROMAR BIACORA ARCEDO was born on August 24, 1994 in City of Lucena, Quezon.

He finished his primary education in International Montessori School and secondary

education in Emmanuel Christian School (ECS). He is taking up Bachelor of Science in

Civil Engineering at Malayan Colleges Laguna and is residing at Brgy. Malitlit, Santa

Rosa City, Laguna.He was the Public Relation Officer in Civil Engineering Organization

(CEO) S.Y. 2014-2015 and currently the Vice President of Every Nation Campus (ENC)

S.Y. 2015 – 2016.He is a bonafide member and actively participating in activities of the

Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers (PICE) – MCL Student Chapter and Civil

Engineering Organization (CEO) – MCL.

ii
MYLA CLAVERIA MANDANAS was born on September 21, 1992 in Dolores Quezon.

She finished her primary education in Laguna Colleges of Business and Art (LCBA) and

secondary education in Saint John Colleges (SJC). She is currently taking up Bachelor of

Science in Civil Engineering at Malayan Colleges Laguna and is residing in St.

Augustine Lawa Calamba City, Laguna. She is a member of the Civil Engineering

Organization (CEO) – MCL, Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers (PICE) – MCL

Student Chapter and actively participating in Civil Engineering Seminars.

iii
Acknowledgement

Immeasurable appreciation and deepest gratitude for the help and support are

extended to the following who highly contributed to the success of this study.

Engr. Hermie M. Del Pilar, the researcher’s adviser, for his guidance, support,

valuable comments and provisions all throughout the period that benefit with the

completion of this study. His knowledge and expertise, experience and patience are a big

help in every angle of this research. His enthusiasm to serve as an adviser inspired the

group to finish this study precisely and on time.

Engr. Joseph Berlin P. Juanzon and Arch. Leslie Ollie C. Cataluna, the

researcher’s panel, for useful comments and suggestion for the betterment of this paper.

Engr. Neslyn E. Lopez, the researcher’s course coordinator, for her kind

supportand thoughtfulness in every step of their study. Her expertise also gave the

researchers ideas that aided the progress of this study.

Engr. Jobbie B. Aldaba, Engr. Patrick B. Aldaba and the contractors, for being

supportive and for willingly participated and gave the researchers the data used in this

study.

To the parents, relatives and friends of the researchers for their help emotionally,

spiritually, and financially and for the encouragement of finishing this study.

Lastly, to God Almighty! The researchers could not havebeen able to finish this

study without the grace, blessings, and existing body of knowledge endowed by Him.

iv
Abstract

Safety standards usually do not exist in developing countries; even if they do the

regulatory authority is usually very weak in implementing such standards

effectively.Among the developing countries, the Philippines experienced an increased in

demand of construction projects, but the health and safety in the construction industry is

not a priority. From this perspective, this research gathered for approved safety standards

in the UK and US. These are OHSAS 18001:2007 and ISO 45001:2014 known as

Occupational Health and Safety Management System. Questionnaires were designed and

distributed to construction firms in Laguna to meet the objectives of the project which to

determine the health and safety standards currently applied. This study investigated the

safety awareness and management safety practices have relationship on profile factors. It

also determined that types of construction services, number of employees and if years of

operation have relationships on severity of safety issues. The researchers found out in this

study that the awareness level of construction firm’s on safety management based on

knowledge and practices have no significant difference according to profile factors.The

district and PCAB category has no relationship with respect to severity and the total

accident rate and grade on safety on safety standards have weak negative correlation.

v
Table of Contents

Copyright i

Biographical Sketch ii

Acknowledgement iv

Abstract v

Table of Contents vi

Introduction 1

Review of Literature 5

Methodology 18

Results and Discussion 29

Conclusion 93

Recommendations 95

References 97

Appendices 100

List of Tables vii

List of Figures ix

List of Appendices xi

List of Acronyms/Abbreviations xii

Definition of Terms xiii

vi
List of Tables

Table No. Title Page

1 Profile of Respondents according to Company Positions 20

Knowledge Scale of Construction Firm’s Awareness on ISO


2 21
45001:2014

3 Scale of Application of Grade on Safety Standard 21

4 Correlation Coefficient Range 21

5 Summary of Research Instrument and Statistical Tools 27

6 Summary of Research Instrument and Statistical Tools 28

Construction Firms Respondent per District according to PCAB


7 30
Category
Construction Firms Respondent per District according to Number
8 31
of Employees
Construction Firms Respondent per District according to Years of
9 31
Operation
Construction Firms Respondent per District according to Type of
10 32
Services

11 Level of Awareness with ISO 45001:2014 34

12 Constructions that are Implementing ISO 45001:2014 35

Knowledge Scale Differences of Construction Firm according to


13 36
Profile Factors
Level of Awareness of Construction Firm Respondents according
14 38
to PCAB Category
Level of Awareness of Construction Firm Respondents according
15 40
to Number of Employees

vii
Level of Awareness of Construction Firm Respondents according
16 43
to Years of Operations
Level of Awareness of Construction Firm Respondents according
17 45
to Types of Services
Practice Scale Differences of Construction Firm Respondents
18 46
according to Profile Factors
Severity Level of Construction Firm Respondents according to
19 74
PCAB Category
Severity Level of Construction Firm Respondents according to
20 76
District
Severity Level of Construction Firm Respondents according to
21 79
Number of Employees
Severity Level of Construction Firm Respondents according to
22 81
Years of Operation
Severity Level of Construction Firm Respondents according to
23 86
Type of Services

24 Severity Level vs. Grade on Safety Standard 89

viii
List of Figures

Figure No. Title Page

Causes of Over 3 Day Injuries in UK Construction Industry 1996


1 8
– 2003
Causes of Over Major Injuries UK Construction Industry 1996 –
2 9
2003

3 Causes of Fatal Injuries in UK Construction Industry 1996 – 2003 10

4 Total Number of Respondent 29

5 Awareness on ISO 45001:2014 33

6 Level of Awareness with ISO 45001:2014 34

7 Awareness on ISO 45001:2014 per PCAB Category 37

Sources of Awareness on ISO 45001:2014 according to PCAB


8 38
Category
Awareness of ISO 45001:2014 according to Number of
9 39
Employees
Source of Awareness on ISO 45001:2014 according to Number of
10 40
Employees

11 Awareness of ISO 45001:2014 according to Years of Operation 41

Sources of Awareness on ISO 45001:2014 according to Years of


12 42
Operation

13 Awareness of ISO 45001:2014 according to Type of Services 44

Sources of Awareness on ISO 45001:2014 according to Type of


14 45
Services
OSHMS Tools and Practices Being Implemented by Construction
15 47
Firm according to PCAB Category

ix
OSHMS Tools and Practices Being Implemented by Construction
16 Firm according to Number of Employees 53

OSHMS Tools and Practices Being Implemented by Construction


17 Firm according to Year of Operations 59

OSHMS Tools and Practices Being Implemented by Construction


18 Firm according to Type of Services 67

19 Graph of Grade on Safety Standard vs. Total Accident Rate 91

x
List of Appendices

Appendix
Title Page
No.

A Occupational Safety and Health Standard 100

B Dangerous Occurrences 122

C Request Letter for Construction Companies 128

D Questionnaire Survey 129

E Data Collected 138

F Chi-Square Test and Corrected Standardized Residual 146

G Correlation Analysis 158

xi
List of Acronyms/Abbreviations

BWC Bureau of Working Conditions

CSR Corrected Standard Residual

DOLE Department of Labor and Employment

DPWH Department of Public Works and Highways

DTI Department of Trade and Industry

FA Fatal Accidents

FAR Fatal Accident Rate

HSC Health and Safety Commission

HSE Health and Safety Executive

ILO International Labor Organization

ISO International Organization for Standardization

MAR Major Accident Rate

MIAR Minor Accident Rate

NFAR Non-fatal Accident Rate

OSHS Occupational Safety and Health Standards

PCAB Philippine Contractors Accreditation Board

PICE Philippines Institute of Civil Engineering


Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences
RIDDOR
Regulation 1945
TA Total Accidents

TAR Total Accident Rate

xii
Definition of Terms

Construction Safety and Health Officer – refers to safely personnel or any employee or

worker trained by their employer to implement the occupational safety and health

program based in provisions of DOLE D.O. No. 13 and the Occupational Safety

and Health Standards (OSHS).

Construction Safety and Health Program (CSHP) – refers to a set of standards to cover

the processes and practices that should be utilized in a specific construction site in

conventionality with the OSHS including the personnel tasks and the penalties of

violations thereof.

Corrected Standardized Residual (csr) – a measure of the strength of the dependence

between variables

Fatal accident rate – percentage of the number of fatal accidents in a variable to the total

fatal accident occurrence

fatal accidents (FA) – number of fatal accidents happened in a community or category

Health and Safety Executive (HSE) – Local authorities are responsible for the

enforcement of health and safety legislation in shops, offices, and other parts of

the service sector.

International Organization for Standardization (ISO) – an organization promotes

worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards.

non-fatalaccident rate – percentage of the number of non-fatal accidents in a variable to

the total non-fatal accident occurrence

xiii
non-fatalaccidents (NA) – number of non-fatal accidents happened in a community or

category

Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) – a government agency

implement the safety and health standard as a protection of employee from

occupational hazard. Agency educated and trained employee to promote safety

and health workplace who worked in construction.

Occupation Safety and Health Standard (OSHS) – agency in the Philippines that reduce

occupational safety and health hazard at the workplace to ensure the safety and

the healthful working condition of the individual.

Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) - also commonly denoted also as occupational

health and safety (OHS) or workplace health and safety (WHS) is an area

involved with the safety, health and welfare of people appointed in work or

employment.

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) – the standard devices that need to wear in the site

especially for employees, visitors and contractor to protect individual from a

workplace hazard or injuries.

Total Accident (TA) – total number of accident happened in a community or category

Total Accident Rate – percentage of the number of accidents in a variable to the total

accident occurrence in the Philippines

xiv
Introduction

Health and safety are first and foremost concern in any industry. It is particularly

very important for the construction industry whereaccidents are more likely to happen.

History reveals that health and safety in the construction necessitate standards in terms of

practices which can be part of construction management(Abbe, Harvey, Ikuma, &

Ahhazadeh, 2008). In most developing countries, advancement in health and safety

standards has been developed extensively, but not much in developing economies(Colina,

Philippines, 2011). As an example, Singapore's fatality is unusually high.The fatality of

rate in the construction sector in Singapore is 39% of its whole sector fatality of 9.4% in

2006 while the international standard for the rate of fatalities in UK and USA are 3.1%

and 4.1% on the whole sectorrespectively. Fatality rate is definedas the number of

workplace fatalities per 100,000 persons employed (Cheng & Wu, 2012).

Draft and publication of standards for good engineering practices based on

standard practice and codes serves as a mean to address the increasing cases of accidents.

As an example, the United Kingdom created a bill Health and Safety at Works Act

(Glover, 1974). The bill aimed to lessen accidents cases by adding a new requirement,

but it became apparent that many accidents still occurred. Experts believed that the root

cause of these accidents were hardly the result of technical failures but rather due to the

result of inadequate organizational standards (such as lack of obedience to standard

health and safety rules or absence or poor communication within the firm). A study done

by Campbell (2006) discussed that lack of feed-back, poor communication, too much

work, inadequate staffing, ambitious deadline, pressure and conflicting demands causes

1
occupational stress(Campbell, 2006). Many Laws and regulations have been made in for

the prevention of occupational accidents and diseases related to the field of work because

of the increase in attention given to occupational accidents world-wide. In conjunction to

the growing attention to occupational accidents, the cost of accident is equally given

important by the International Labour Organization (ILO)(Hämäläinen, Saarela, &

Takala, 2008). In another study, it is stated that occupational stress results in

psychological, physiological, and sociological strain effects; organizational climate is

largely determined by gender, job demand, and control and support factors; demographic

factor are significant predictors of discrimination; and physiological strain, sociological

strain are determined by age, job demands, and discrimination (Bowen, Govender, &

Edwards, 2014). McShane and Von Glinow also said that low productivity, high

absenteeism, and poor job performance are some of the results of occupational stress.

Consequently, preventing occupational injuries and illness should be a primary concern

for all employers and employees in any countries.But as the world has become smaller

through the means of technological advancement and through cooperative arrangements

that cross numerous borders, the issue of the construction worker‘s health and safety has

turned into a well-recognized problem and represents a concern that is shared globally

(McShane & Glinow, 2005).

Philippines over the past few decades experienced an increased in demand of

construction projects. Just recently, the Philippine Daily Inquirer, disclosed that the

Philippine Construction sector is expected to have a sustained growth to reach about 1.7

trillion but the health and safety in the construction industry was given little

importance(Remo, 2015). An effort must be made to raise the level of awareness among

2
both employees and employers of the importance of health and safety at work sites apart

from undertaking routine spot checks in construction sites to ensure compliance with the

health and safety standards. The need to study how the construction industry in the

Philippines invest and prepares on the issues of safety are essential to see how the

Philippines fare compared to the rest of the world.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the construction company’s awareness

level on ISO 45001:2014. The objective of this study was to assess construction

companies with the profile factors against its severity. It also aimed to determine the

significant difference of total accident rate with the grade on safety standards of

construction firms. This paper provided documentation of construction accidents and the

causes of accidents in construction industry within Laguna districts. Finally, this study

contains conclusions that reflect appropriate mitigating solutions for the accidents in

construction.

The significance of the study stems from the need to contribute to the knowledge

in safety problems in Philippine construction industry. Such benefits include: lessened

cases of accidents in the workplace, less employee’s absences and hence increased

productivity, fewer accidents and less dangers of legal action, improved standing among

clients and partners, and obviously reduced costs to the business.

3
Scope and Delimitation of the Study

The study covered in determining the significant difference of level of awareness

according to the profile factors of construction companies such as PCAB category,

district, number of employees, years of operation and type of services. Also, the study

includes the relationship of total accident rate and grade of safety in construction

companies.

The study was limited in assessing the construction accidents reports in

construction companies of Laguna district that occur from 2010 to 2015 by evaluating to

profile factors: PCAB Category, District, Number of Employees, Years of Operation and

Type of Services against severity. The researchers only considered construction

companies who gave all the data needed and willingly answered both questionnaires for

this research.

4
Review of Related Literature

Construction and Accidents

Construction and accidents are related to each other. Countries practicing Labor-

intensive technology in construction sector are more prone to accidents compared to

countries practicing machine-intensive technology in construction sector. In particular,

most accidents occur in formwork assembly (Saurin, 2008). In another research,

accidents occurs more as the demand for productivity increases. In a research conducted

spanning over a period of 100 weeks, as the production pressure increasedthe demand to

finish project also increased. To cope up with the need to finish the project, supervisors

increase the work speed of workers and as a result, the incident rate of accidents increases

(Guo, Yiu, & González, 2015). With the relation of construction and accident directly

proportional, researchers (Hea, et al., 2015) concluded that injuries and accidents were

the results of unreasonable demands, unclear safety procedure and work practice

Systematic impact of institutional pressures on safety climate in the construction industry

(Hea, et al., 2015).

Global Records on Construction Accidents

The construction industry is considered to have one of the highest numbers of

work-related injuries and fatalities every year compared with other industries. The

construction sector experience extreme high rate of injuries and fatalities, even though

improvements in occupational safety are implemented. Around 5,500 people lose their

lives each year and more than 75,000 are disabled that they can no longer work.

5
Moreover, according to the major surveys people experience physical problems at work

cause by manual lifting of heavy objects. Accident records in the construction industry

are poorly made and handled compared to the accident record in the manufacturing

industry. The factories in the manufacturing industry are normally working on a

controlled setting, the working procedures and equipment change for over long periods of

time also efforts usually remains constant. Once the hazards identifies, it can be cured

with relative ease and the danger lessened. However, the case differs in the construction

industry, where the working environment is always changing. This is due to deadline of

the project schedule, hazards to health and safety occurs within the construction industry,

because of its nature and the uncontrollable environment in which production takes place

(Alhajeri, 2011).

The causes of accident in the construction industry around the world are

primarily from site work condition, workers behavior and poor safety management that

result of unsafe methods, procedures and equipment. The dynamic work in construction

is the major causes for several types of occurrences resulting in fatalities and

injuries(HSE, 2003).

Studies on Work-related accident and injuries Construction Sector in the World

Because of the increase in attention given to occupational accidents world-wide,

many laws and regulations have been made in prevention of occupational accidents and

diseases related to the field of work. Despite the attention given to occupational accidents

and work-related diseases, many countries still have no proper notification system and

recording of data concerning fatalities in the industry resulting to incomplete and

6
inadequate data. In parallel with the growing demand for effectiveness and to lessen the

financial burden of accidents, gathering of data pertaining to occupational accidents had

increased. In conjunction to the growing attention to occupational accidents, the cost of

accident is equally given importance by the International Labor Organization (ILO)

(Hämäläinen, Saarela, & Takala, 2008). As an example, Singapore's fatality is unusually

high. In 2006, the total accident on the construction sector is 9.6% of accidents in all

sectors. In which the rate of fatality of the accident in the construction sector is 36%.

Comparing it to the international standard for the rate of fatalities in the construction

sector, in US the fatality rate in the construction sector is 3.1% while in UK the rate of

fatalities in the construction is 4.1%. Both of which are significantly lower compared to

Singapore’s fatality rate in construction industry (Ling, Liu, & Woo, 2008). In

comparison to the global standards, in the year 2010, the Philippines data on work related

accidents in all industry claims that the construction sector comprises 72.73% of all the

accidents that had occurred. In which 49.05% of that accidents occur leads to fatality

(Bureau of Working Conditions, 2015).

Causes of Accidents

The three types of injuries caused by accidents are minor, major and fatal injuries.

Minor injuries last over 3 days injured that lead to workers absence from work for more

than 3 days. Major injuries may involve fractures, eliminations, dislocations and other

that may lead to 24 hours in a hospital. And fatal injuries are those resulting in death (Tim

Howarth, 2009).

7
Based on the graph in Figure 1, the minor injuries are mostly handling, lifting or

carrying (35%). Workers do manual lifting and carrying of material that can causes of

fractures of bone, compared to slips, trips or falls (19%), 3rd falls from height, the 4th

stuck by moving objects and last struck against something stationary (Tim Howarth,

2009).

11% 18%
12% 5%

19%

35%

Figure 1. Causes of Over 3 Day Injuries in UK Construction Industry 1996 – 2003

(Source: Tim Howarth, 2009) ( Struck by moving object, Struck against something

stationary, Handling, lifting or carrying, slips, trips or falls, Falls from height,

Others )

As seen in Figure 2, Health and Safety Commission's statisticof the causes of

major injuries in the United Kingdom construction industry during 1996-2003. These

injuries arefall from height (35%), the 2nd (22%) of split, trip or fall, the 3rd struck by

moving object (18%), the 4th handling, lifting and carrying (9%), (3%) of contact with

machinery and stuck by vehicle (2%) (Tim Howarth, 2009).

8
11% 18% 2%
3%

35% 9%

22%

Figure 2. Causes of Over Major Injuries UK Construction Industry 1996 – 2003 (Source:

Tim Howarth, 2009) ( Struck by moving object, Struck by moving vehicle, Contact

with machinery, Handling, lifting and carrying, Slips, trips or falls, Falls from

height, Other)

Figure 3 shows the distribution of the causes of fatal injuries in United

Kingdom.Most of the fatal injuries were from fall from height (46%) which isalmosthalf

of all fatalities whilestrikes by moving vehicles or moving objects accounts for nearly

one third of fatalities. Other types of causes of fatality were contact with electricity and

being trapped by something collapsing or overturning. Working from height can cause

accidental fatality to workers (Tim Howarth, 2009).

9
9% 17%
7%
7%
14%

46%

Figure 3. Causes of Fatal Injuries in UK Construction Industry 1996 – 2003(Source: Tim

Howarth, 2009) ( Struck by moving object, Struck by a moving vehicle, Falls from

height, Trapped by something collapsing/ overturning, Contact with electricity,

Others )

Dangerous Occurrences in Construction Industry

The Schedule 2 of The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous

Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR) details the dangerous occurrences in

construction industry that are needed to be stated. The schedule details such incidences

with specific regard to five segments of workplace namely: general, mines, quarries,

offshore and transport systems workplaces. The schedule details a number of occurrences

that are particularly pertinent to the construction workplace (Tim Howarth, 2009).

The occurrences are prescribed in 13 categories and these are lifting machinery,

pressure systems, electrical short circuit, overhead electric lines, explosives, biological

agents, breathing apparatus, collapse of scaffolding, pipelines or pipeline works, collapse

10
of building or structure, explosion or fire, escape of flammable substances and escape of

substances.

International Construction Industry/ ISO Standard on OSHA

ISO 45001:2014 Occupational Health and Safety Management System.ISO

45001:2014 is also known as occupational health and safety (OH&S)

management systems, with regulation for its use, to allow an organization to

develop its OH&S implementation in avoiding injury and illness of workers.

OH&S is an International Standard that planned to be relevant to any organization

in spite of its size, type and nature and all of its prerequisites are meant to be

incorporated into management processes of an organization. ISO 45001 qualifies

an organization via its OH&S management system to combine other

characteristics of safety and health for instance worker wellness. However, it

should be stated that an organization can be necessitated by appropriate rightful

requirements to also address such issues (International Organization for

Standardization, 2015).

ISO 9001 (quality) and ISO 14001 (environment) is high level structure approach

that is being applied also in ISO 45001. OHSAS 18001 and International Labor

Organization’s (ILO-OSH Guidelines) and national standardshave been taken

account to the content of other international standards as well as to the ILO’s

International Labor standards and conventions (ILSs) (International Organization

for Standardization, 2015).

11
Occupational Health and Safety Management System OSHAS 18001:2007.

Guidelines for the implementation of OHSAS 18001 have been improved in

response to customer requirements for an identifiable OH&S management system

standard against which management system of an organization can be evaluated

and confirmed (NQA, 2009).

Philippines Construction Industry Accident

Cultural Centre of the Philippines.In the Philippines, construction industry also

suffered several accidents. OnNovember 17, 1981 atragedy happened during the

construction atthe Cultural Centre of the Philippines (CCP) in Pasay, when the

second basement scaffolding collapsed and the workers in graveyard shift were

buried and trapped. On January 1982, another accident happen during the final

stages of construction when the scaffolding collapsed that caused workers to fall

into wet cement and impaled on steel bars. To complete the project on time,

Imelda Marcos instructed to rush the construction and pour fresh concrete cement

over the dead people to continue the construction. Pedrosa (2010), stated that

twenty eight workers were killed in accident according to the Marcos controlled

press but the rumor was that 168 bodies died. Betty Benitez handled the project

for the orders of first lady to pour the cement over the dead workers (Pedrosa,

2010).

Philippine Arena.Constructed recently is the Philippine Arena in Ciudad de

Victoria Bocaue, St. Maria Bulacan with over 140 hectares. The construction

started in 2011 and was finished in 2014 before the centennial celebration. In July

12
2013, two Filipinos construction workers died due to steel scaffolding breakdown.

In December 2013, one Korean supervisor of subcontractors of the arena was

identified as fatality. According to the investigation, Korean and Filipino workers

were riding on the crane basket when one of its cables snapped. Kim Chel Yong

was not wearing safety hardness caused him to fell in the ground and he brought to

the hospital but sadly death on arrival (Balabo, 2013).

Makati Business District.An accident at Eton Property Group’s condominium

caused death and injuries. On January 27, 2011, a gondola with 11 men fell from

the 21st floor. Ten workers died while one survived with several fractures and

injuries. Apparently the suspended electric lift only had a maximum carry

capacity of five to six people.Based on the result of investigation the causes of

accident were disregarded for safety of the construction worker and its

subcontractors. Employeeslack personal protective equipment for safety such as

hardhat and lifelines. The collapsed gondola had no official operator to raise and

to lower the lift (Santolan, 2011).

Contractor and subcontractor violatedthe safety standard of DOLE, but

DOLE also did not inspect work site. According to labor standard, corporation

that employs more than 200 workers should voluntary check its own safety

standard. DOLE only inspects companies who employ less than 200 workers. The

deceased construction workers had no employment records in the company,

because they were only contractual, they get paid much less than the standard

salary. Ecumenical Institute for Labor Education and Research state that 1.8

million construction workers were employed in the construction industry. The

13
1.79 million were consider contractual and the remaining 100,000 were only

regular employee. Contractual workers receive no benefits and paid only less than

minimum wages (Santolan, 2011).

Studies on Work-Related Accident and Injuries Construction Sector in the

Philippines

Philippines like other developing countries have some inadequacy in proper

notification system and recording of data concerning fatalities in the industry in the start.

As an example, in a report written by the Occupational Health and Safety Development

(Colina, Invisible Victims of Developments, 2011), it was cited that the Occupational

Health and Safety Center releaseddata that was poorly compiled and not all data was

available. The available data pertaining to occupational injuries that leads fatal cases was

for the year 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2007. In which the construction sector gather a large

part of the fatalities (Colina, Invisible Victims of Developments, 2011).

In effort to improve the data recording and notification system, the Department of

Labor and Employment (DOLE) together with Department of Public Works and

Highway (DPWH), Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Department of the Interior

and Local Governance (DILG), Philippine Contractors Accreditation Board (PCAB) and

Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) in pursuit of delivering accurate and

complete data relating to work-related accident and fatalities signed a Memorandum in

order to strengthen the coordination and linkage between concerned agencies to enhance

the welfare of the construction workers and the construction industry (D.O. 13s1998).

Based on the report done by Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) researchers

14
for the year 2010 to 2015, the construction sector is having a decrease in accidents and

fatalities. From the 72.73% of all accidents in all industry in the year 2010, it declined to

58.62% in the year 2011. It was further reduce to 53.19% in the year 2012 then to

46.15% in the year 2013 and lastly down to 43.23%. The recent data shows a great

improvement compared to 2010 data. The report shows that amiss the decline of the total

percent of accidents in all industry, the construction sector still gathers the biggest

percentage of accident in the Philippines. Most accidents in the construction sector are

cause by struck-by with 34% followed by fall and near miss with 22% (Bureau of

Working Conditions, 2015).

Philippine Construction Industry/DOLE Standard on OSHS

In 1978, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards were revised in

compliance with the constitutional mandate to protect and to guide the worker’s social

and economic well-being as well as his physical safety and health. The 1978 Standards is

considered as a landmark in Philippine labor and social legislation adopted through the

tested democratic machinery of tripartism (Department of Labor and Employment, 1989).

Correspondingly increased the number and types of occupational threat that

workers are exposed to, the advent of industrialization and continuing introduction of

technological innovations in our country today have. Viewed against this backdrop, it

became imperative that the standards be revised to make it truly responsive to the

workers’ needs (Department of Labor and Employment, 1989).

In August 1989, the revisions made by Bureau of Working Conditions (BWC),

the ILO Manila Office and the tripartite sectors were finally approved by the Secretary of

15
Labor and Employment in accordance with the authority under Article 162 of the Labor

Code of the Philippines. With the latest improvements in the standards, all establishments

covered will now be provided with a better tool for promoting and maintaining a safe and

conducive working environment (Department of Labor and Employment, 1989).

Types of Construction Services in the Philippines

Construction Services Classified by Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers

(PICE).Construction services in the Philippines provide variety of services which

are indicated in the "Manual of Professional Practice for Civil Engineers". The

services offered in the Philippine construction sector are the following; feasibility

studies, Field investigation and engineering data collection, design, construction

and services, teaching, provision of supplementary temporary staff, project

management and controls, structural remediation or rehabilitation, environmental

assessment, impact statements or engineering reports, opinions of probable

construction cost, preliminary and final designs, drawing, specifications and

construction bidding documents, assessment of risk, expert testimony, value

engineering, construction administration and observation, arrangement of testing

of materials and equipment, assistance for or performance of testing of materials

and equipment, assistance of start-up, assessment of capacity, and operation of

facilities, appraisal and rate studies and preparation of operation and maintenance

of manuals (Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers, 2012).

Construction Services classified by Philippine Contractors Accreditation

Board (PCAB).According to Juanzon (2014), the type of construction services

16
being extracted by construction firms are based on PCAB classification, which are

General Building (GB), General Engineering, both General Building and General

Engineering and Specialty (Juanzon, 2014).

General Building for construction companies are concerned in

constructing vertical structures such as buildings, whether commercial, industrial,

government institution, industrial plants, including sewerage or sewage system,

water treatment plant and system, and parks, playground or recreational work

(Juanzon, 2014).

Contractors are involved in infrastructure projects for instance road,

highways, pavements, railways, airport structures, bridges, irrigation or flood

control, dams, reservoir or tunneling, water supply, ports and harbor or offshore

engineering for General Engineering (Juanzon, 2014).

Specialty construction firms are those who specialize in the following

specialty works: foundation works, structural steel work, concrete pre-casting,

pre-stressing or post tensioning, plumbing and sanitary works, electrical works,

air-conditioning or refrigeration, mechanical work, fire protection work, elevator

or escalator, fire protection work, waterproofing work, painting work, well-

drilling work, communication facilities, metal roofing and siding installation,

structural demolition, landscaping, electro mechanical work, and navigation

works (Juanzon, 2014).

17
Methodology

The researchers used descriptive method of researchto describe the awareness

level and construction accident profiles in companies using the following descriptive

tools: (a) Chi Square and Corrected Standardized Residual (CSR), and (b) Correlation

Analysis. The variables considered in this study are as follows:

 Profile Factors vs. Awareness Level on ISO 45001:2014 (Chi Square)

 Profile Factors vs. Severity of accidents (Chi Square and CSR)

 Total Accident Rate vs. Grade on Application of Safety Standard (Correlational

Analysis)

This studyaimed to measure the level of awareness of construction as to

knowledge and practice of ISO 45001:2014 in the construction industry. The study also

measuredthe level of severity per company and the grade on safety standard of

construction firm’s existing standard based on OSHA Pocket Guide. The descriptive

method of research was the most appropriate method to be used since the present study

will be concerned with the current status of safety programs in different companies.

Aside from e-mail survey questionnaires, interviews were conducted among

selected construction companies to validate the consistency of the answers.

18
Research Locale

Construction business is well distributed all over the country. It was decided by

the researchers that the study will be limited to PCAB accredited construction firms in the

Laguna area.

Laguna is one of the provinces of the Philippines. Laguna is under the

CALABARZON region and it is also designated in Region IV-A. This province is

composed of four congressional districts, namely: 1st district, 2nd district, 3rd district and

4th district. In 1st district, there are three municipalities belongs to first district and these

are San Pedro, Biñan and Santa Rosa. In 2nd district, the municipalities are Cabuyao,

Calamba, Los Baños and Bay. The municipalities in 3rd district are Alaminos, Calauan,

Liliw, Nagcarlan, Rizal, San Pablo City and Victoria. And lastly, the municipalities of 4th

district are Cavinti, Famy, Kalayaan, Luisiana, Lumban, Mabitac, Magdalena, Majayjay,

Paete, Pagsanjan, Pakil, Pangil, Pila, Siniloan, Sta. Cruz and Sta. Maria.

Population and Sampling

The respondents of the study were the operational managers, safety engineers and

company owners of construction firms in Laguna as seen in Table 1. The desired sample

size, total population of 164contractors in Lagunawasextracted out of the total list 7,371

licensed contractors listed by Philippine Contractors Accreditation Board (PCAB) as of

June 19, 2015.

19
Table 1
Profile of Respondents according to Company Position
POSITION NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
1. Company Owners 5
2. Project Manager 2
3. Operations Manager 4
4. Admin Manager 3
5. Site Engineer 4
6. Safety Officer 6
7. Safety Engineer 6
TOTAL 30

The central limit theorem (CLT) says that if the sample size is large enough, the

sampling distribution of the mean of any random and independent variable will be

normal. In study of Hogg and Tanis (2010), a sample size of 25 to 30 is large enough

when the population distribution is roughly bell-shaped. The researchersapplied the rule

of 30 in this study.

Research Instrument

To measure the level of awareness, survey questionnaires were emailed and

delivered to respondents from selected construction firms in Laguna. Rating scale was

used to measure awareness of selected construction firms as to knowledge and practices

of ISO 45001. Guttman scale for measuring knowledge and practice was used, while

Likert scale was used to measure for frequently used safety standard.

20
Table 2
Knowledge Scale of Construction Firm’s Awareness on ISO 45001:2014
Scale Description Weighted Description
3 – Very Familiar 2.35 – 3.00
2 – Somewhat Familiar 1.68 – 2.34
1 – Aware but not Familiar 1.00 – 1.67

Table 3
Scale of Application of Grade on Safety
Scale Description Weighted Description
5 – Required 4.25 – 5.00
4 – Very Often 3.41 – 4.20
3 – Often 2.61 – 3.40
2 – Sometimes 1.81 – 2.60
1 – Never 1.00 – 1.80

Table 4
Correlation Coefficient Range
Descriptive Range
Perfect Positive Correlation + 1.00
Strong Positive Correlation + 0.60
Moderate Positive Correlation + 0.30
Weak Positive Correlation + 0.10
No Correlation 0.00
Weak Negative Correlation - 0.10
Moderate Negative Correlation - 0.30
Strong Negative Correlation - 0.60
Perfect Negative Correlation - 1.00

21
Data Gathering Procedure

First, the researchers achieved a test to selected construction firms in Laguna to

assess the validity of the survey questionnaire prior to distribution to identified

construction firms. Second, the researchers wrote and sent a letter of request

toconstruction companies via email and had secured a copy of accidents records noted by

the adviser. Third, the researchers pursued professional enumerators’ support and sent

copies of the duly approved request letter and attached survey questionnaire to the

identified list of respondents. Fourth, the researchers compiled, sorted, merged and

summarized the data collected to facilitate both qualitative and quantitative analyses. And

last, the researchers analyzed the results of the data and identified issues brought about by

deficiencies in management process and recommend appropriate corrective measures.

Analysis of Data

Significance Difference in the Awareness Level of Construction Firms in

Implementing ISO 45001:2014 when grouped according to their Profile

Factors.The researchers performed the methodology which was analogous to

methodology performed by Juanzon (2014), graphs and tables were made and chi-

square values were calculated to test hypotheses of profile factors with respect to

knowledge and practices.

Significance Difference in the Severity Level of Construction Firms when

Grouped according to their Profile Factors.Continuing with the methodology

performed by Arquillos et al. (2012), contingency tables were created and chi-

square values were calculated to test hypotheses of the variables (PCAB License,

22
PCAB Category, District, Number of Employees, Years of Operation and Type of

Services) with respect to severity. This statistics shows the possible effect of the

different values of the variables on severity.

The computations of corrected standardized residual (csr) were also

performed. This value provides a statistical significance of 95% in order to reject

the hypothesis of independence of variables. If the value of csr is less than 1.96,

the hypothesis is accepted and the values with this case were mark with an

asterisk in the contingency tables. If the csr value is greater than 1.96, a

confirmation that there exist of more than a random influence for severity-related

variables.

The classification of the accidents analyzed is based on Health and Safety

Executive (HSE), the severity for this study is divided into two: non-fatal and

fatal. Fatal accidents are accidents which can cause death. Non-fatal accidents are

accidents which can source of injury. Non-fatal accident divided into two: minor

accident and major accident. Minor accidents are those that lead to worker’s

absence from work for more than 3 days. Major accidents are those that may

involve fractures, amputations, dislocations and others that may lead to 24 hours

in a hospital. Total Accident Rate (TAR) were obtained by using Equation 1

where the number of accidents in a variables (PCAB License, PCAB Category,

District, Number of Employees, Years of Operation and Type of Services) are

divided by the total number of accidents then multiplied by 100%.

𝑁𝑜. 𝑜𝑓𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑉𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒


𝑇𝐴𝑅 = × 100% (1)
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠

23
Major Accident Rate (MAR) were obtained by dividing the number of

major accidents in a variable by the total number of major accidents multiplied by

100% which is shown in Equation 2.

𝑁𝑜. 𝑜𝑓 𝑀𝑎𝑗𝑜𝑟 𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑎 𝑉𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒


𝑀𝐴𝑅 = × 100% (2)
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑀𝑎𝑗𝑜𝑟 𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠

Minor Accident Rate (MIAR) were obtained by dividing the number of

minor accidents in a variable by the total number of minor accidents multiplied by

100% which is shown in Equation 3.

𝑁𝑜. 𝑜𝑓 𝑀𝑎𝑗𝑜𝑟 𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑎 𝑉𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒


𝑀𝐼𝐴𝑅 = × 100% (3)
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑜𝑟 𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠

Lastly, the Fatal Accident Rate (FAR) were obtained by dividing the

number of fatal accidents in a variable by the total number of fatal accidents

multiplied by 100% which can be seen in Equation 4.

𝑁𝑜. 𝑜𝑓 𝐹𝑎𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑎 𝑉𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒


𝐹𝐴𝑅 = × 100 (4)
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝐹𝑎𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠

Note that the total accident is the sum of nonfatal accidents and fatal

accidents which is shown in Equation 5.

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 𝑀𝑎𝑗𝑜𝑟 𝐴𝑐𝑐. +𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑜𝑟 𝐴𝑐𝑐. + 𝐹𝑎𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑐𝑐. (5)

24
After data analysis, this study provided appropriate mitigating actions in

every variable. These mitigating actions were suggested to minimize accident, if

not to fully eliminate the accidents.

Significance Difference of Total Accident Rate (TAR) with Grade on Safety

Standard according to Construction Companies.In this section, the researchers

performed a correlation analysis between Total Accident Rate (TAR) and Grade

on Safety Standard with regards to Construction Companies. The researchers used

two methods of correlating two variables and these are Pearson’s Correlation

Coefficient (r) and Spearman’s Rank Order Coefficient (rs). These values provide

a statistical significance of 95% in order to reject the hypothesis of independence

of variables.

Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient were obtained by this formula shown in

Equation 6

𝑁 ∑ 𝑋𝑌 − ∑ 𝑋 ∑ 𝑌
𝑟= (6)
√(𝑁 ∑ 𝑋 2 − (∑ 𝑋)2 ) ∗ (𝑁 ∑ 𝑌 2 − (∑ 𝑌)2 )

where N is the total number of sample population, X is weighted mean grade on

safety of construction companies and Y is total accident rate of construction

occurrence between 2010 – 2015.

25
Spearman’s Rank Order Coefficient (rs) were obtained by this formula

shown in Equation 7

6 ∑ 𝐷2
𝑟𝑠 = 1 − (7)
𝑁(𝑁 2 − 1)

Where N is the total number of sample population and D is the difference between

ranks of X and Y.

26
Table 5 and 6 shows the summary of appropriate statistical tools used and in

interpretation of data.

Table 5
Summary of Research Instrument and Statistical Tools
Problem Instrument to be used Statistical Tool/Treatment

1. To determine the profile


respondents as to:
Completing Form/ Survey
a. PCAB Category;
Descriptive Statistics
b. Number of Employees;
Questionnaire
c. Years in Operations;
d. Type of construction
services;
2. To identify the level of
awareness of construction
firms in implementing ISO
45001:2014 OH&S Survey Questionnaire Descriptive Statistics
Management System as to:
a. Knowledge
b. Practices
3. To determine the
significant differences in
the level of awareness of
construction firms in Descriptive/Inferential
implementing ISO Survey Questionnaire Statistics
45001:2014 when grouped
according to their profile
factors
4. To determine the Survey Questionnaire Descriptive/Inferential
significance differences in Statistics
level of severity of
construction firms when
grouped according to their
profile factors
5. To determine the Survey Questionnaire Descriptive/Inferential
significance differences Statistics
between total accident rate
(TAR) and grade on safety
standard of Construction
Companies

27
Table 6
Summary of Research Instrument and Statistical Tool
Hypothesis Instrument to be Used Statistical Tool

HO1 – There is no Survey Questionnaire Descriptive Statistics


significant difference in the
level awareness of
construction firms in
implementing ISO
45001:2014 when grouped
according to their profile
factors: knowledge and
practices
HO2 – There is no Survey Questionnaire Descriptive Statistics
significant difference in the
severity level of
construction companies
when grouped according to
their profile factors
HO3 – There is no Survey Questionnaire Descriptive Statistics
significant difference
between total accident rate
(TAR) and grade on safety
standard of construction
companies

28
Results and Discussion

Profile of Respondents Construction Firms

From the total list of 7,371 licensed contractors listed by PCAB (as of June 19,

2015) a total of 164 construction firms were extracted in four districts of Laguna. Each of

the respondents was categorized according to PCAB category, number of employees,

years in operations, and type of construction services rendered.

Figure 4 shows the total number of respondents that answered both questionnaire

and only preliminary questionnaire. 12 out of 30 or 40% of the construction companies

answered both preliminary questionnaire and follow-up questionnaire. 18 out of 30 or

60%of the construction companies answered only the preliminary questionnaire due to

their company’s confidentiality. Originally, the researchers needed a sample population

of 30, but the researchers considered 12 construction companies only.

40%

60%

Figure 4. Total Number of Respondent( Both Questionnaire Answered,

Only Preliminary Questionnaire Answered)

29
Profile of construction firms according to PCAB Category. Table 7 shows the

total number of correspondent on each district and percentages based on PCAB

Category. Based on the data gathered, the largest percent of correspondent were

from the Category A Companies (33.33%). Category A companies and Category

C companies each had (25%) of the total correspondent while Category B had

(10.53%) of the total correspondent. The lowest percent of correspondent were

from Category B which had (16.67%).

Table 7
Construction Firms Respondent per District according to PCAB Category
DISTRICT A B C D TOTAL
freq % freq % Freq % freq %
I 1 50 0 0 0 0 1 50 2
II 1 12.5 2 25 2 25 3 37.5 8
III 1 50 0 0 1 50 0 0 2
IV 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0
TOTAL 3 25 2 16.67 3 25 4 33.33 12

Profile of construction firms according to Number of Employees.Table 8

shows the total number of correspondent on each district and percentages based

on the size of the company. Based on the data gathered, the largest percentage of

the correspondents was from small sized company with 58.33%. Medium size

companies composed of 33.33%while the lowest percent of correspondent was

from micro sized company with 8.33%of the total correspondent.

30
Table 8
Construction Firms Respondent per District according to Number of Employees
DISTRICT Micro Small Medium TOTAL
freq % freq % freq %
I 0 0 1 50 1 50 2
II 1 12.5 5 62.5 2 25 8
III 0 0 1 50 1 50 2
IV 0 - 0 - 0 - 0
TOTAL 1 8.33 7 58.33 4 33.33 12

Profile of construction firms according to Years of Operation. Table 9 shows

the total number of correspondent on each district and percentages based on years

of operation of the company. Based on the data gathered, the largest percentage of

the correspondents was from companies with years of operation from 16 to 20

years (41.67%). Companies with years of operation from 6 to 10 years composed

33.33% of the total correspondent, companies with years of operation from more

than 20 years composed of 16.67% of the total correspondent, and companies

with years of operation from 11 to 15 years composed of 8.33% of the total

correspondents. The lowest percent of correspondents was from companies with 1

to 5 years of operation with 0% of the total correspondent.

Table 9
Construction Firms Respondent per District according to Years of Operation
DISTRICT 1 - 5 YEARS 6 - 10 YEARS 11 - 15 YEARS 16 - 20 YEARS > 20 YEARS TOTAL
freq % freq % freq % freq % freq %
I 0 0 0 0 1 50 1 50 0 0 2
II 0 0 3 37.5 0 0 3 37.5 2 25 8
III 0 0 1 50 0 0 1 50 0 0 2
IV 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0
TOTAL 0 0 4 33.33 1 8.33 5 41.67 2 16.67 12

31
Profile of construction firms according to Type of Services. Table 10 shows

the total number of correspondent on each district and percentages based on the

type of services the company wasoffering. Based on the data gathered, the largest

percentage of the correspondents was from company offering both GB and GE

and GB only services (33.33%). Company offering specialty services composed

25% of the total correspondent. The lowest correspondents were from company

offering only GE services 8.33% of the total correspondent.

Table 10
Construction Firms Respondent per District according to Types of Services
DISTRICT GB GE GB & GE SPECIALTY TOTAL
freq % freq % freq % freq %
I 0 0 0 0 1 50 1 50 2
II 4 50 1 12.5 1 12.5 2 25 8
III 0 0 0 0 2 100 0 0 2
IV 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0
TOTAL 4 33.33 1 8.33 4 33.33 3 25 12

Level of Awareness of construction firms in implementing ISO 45001:2014

The level of awareness of the construction firm respondents were measured

according to their knowledge and practices in implementing ISO 45001: 2014.

Knowledge Scale to OSHMS (ISO 45001:2014). The awarenesson ISO 45001:

2014is seen in Figure 5. 10 out of 12 or 83.33% of construction firms were agreed

that aware on ISO 45001:2014 and 2 out of 12 or 16.67% of construction were

disagreed that aware on ISO 45001:2014.

32
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Yes No

Figure 5. Awareness on ISO 45001:2014

Figure 6 shows the level of awareness of construction firms with ISO

45001:2014, 4 out of 10 or 40% were very familiar, 4 out of 10 or 40% of

construction companies were somewhat familiar and 2 out of 10 or 20% of

construction firms were aware but not familiar of ISO 45001:2014.

33
70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
Very Familiar Somewhat Familiar Aware but not Familiar

Figure 6. Level of Awareness with ISO 45001:2014

Table 11 shows the summary of the knowledge awareness of the

respondents to ISO 45001:2014. Based on Location of the company, those from

District III and District I werevery familiar with ISO 45001:2014. Companies

from District II wereboth only somewhat familiar with ISO 45001:2014. None of

the respondents from District IV were aware of ISO 45001:2014.

Table 11
Level of Awareness with ISO 45001:2014
DISTRICT WEIGHTED DESCRIPTION
MEAN
I 2.5 Very Familiar
II 1.833 Somewhat Familiar
III 3 Very Familiar
IV 0 N/A

34
Table 12 shows the construction firms that are implementing ISO

45001:2014. It shows that 58% of construction firms were implementing ISO

45001:2014 and 42% of constructions were not implementing.

Table 12
Construction Firms that are Implementing ISO 45001:2014
Implementing PROVINCE PERCENTAGE
ISO
45001:2014 I II III IV TOTAL
YES 2 3 2 0 7 58.00%
NO 0 5 0 0 5 42.00%
TOTAL 2 8 2 0 12

Significant differences in level of awareness

The significant differences among the construction firms with regards to their

knowledge and practices according to variables (PCAB Category, Number of Employees,

Years of Operation and Type of Services) are presented in this section.

Knowledge differences in the Awareness Level of Construction Firm.The

knowledge differences in the level of awareness construction firms among

respondents according to variables are summarized and presented in Table 13.

Detailed analysis of their knowledge differences according to profile factors are

also reported in following paragraphs.

35
Table 13
Knowledge Scale Differences of Construction Firm according to Profile Factors
KNOWLEDGE

AWARE SOURCES OF AWARENESS LEVEL OF AWARENESS


IN ISO
45001:201
4

PROFILE YE N SEMINA EXPOSUR ACTUAL SCHOOL AWARE SOMEWH VERY


FACTORS S O R/ E LIKE LEARNIN LEARNIN BUT AT FAMILIA
TRANIN HEARD / G FROM G NOT FAMILIAR R
G SEEN COMPAN FAMILIA
Y R

A DISTRICT
.
I 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 1
II 6 2 3 3 2 0 2 3 1
III 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2
IV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
B CATEGOR
. Y
A 3 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 1
B 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1
C 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
D 3 1 1 3 1 0 1 1 1
D YEARS OF
OPERATIO
N
1 - 5 yrs. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 - 10 yrs. 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 1
11 - 15 yrs. 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
16 - 20 yrs. 5 0 2 4 0 0 1 2 2
> 20 yrs. 2 0 2 1 1 0 1 1 0
E NO. OF
EMPLOYE
ES
Micro (1-9) 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Small (10- 5 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 2
99)
Medium 4 0 3 3 1 0 0 2 2
(100-199)
F TYPE OF
SERVICES
GB 2 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 0
GE 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
GB & GE 4 0 1 3 2 0 0 1 3
Specialty 3 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 1

36
Knowledge scale differences of Construction Firm according to PCAB

Category. Respondents a PCAB category who were aware of ISO 45001:2014 as

shown in Figure 7impliedthat Category A and Category D have the most number

of respondents who are aware of ISO 45001:2014. Category B and Category C

have almost equal number of respondents that are aware of ISO 45001:2014.

0
A B C D

Figure 7.Awareness on ISO 45001:2014 per PCAB Category( Yes,

No)

In Figure 8, out of 12 companies were aware of ISO 45001:2014,four (4)

companies became aware through Seminars and training in which the two (2)

companies were from Category A and one (1) each was from Category B and

Category D. Six (6) companies learn from Exposure to ISO 45001:2014via means

of hearing and seeing in which two (2) were from both Category A, one (1) from

Category C andthree (3) companies from Category D. Three (3) companies were

self-taught in which one (1) from Category B, Category C and Category D. None

of the companies learn ISO 45001:2014from schools.

37
3.5
3 SEMINAR / TRAINING
2.5
2 EXPOSURE LIKE HEARD /
SEEN
1.5
1 ACTUAL LEARNING FROM
COMPANY
0.5
SCHOOL LEARNING
0
A B C D

Figure 8.Sources of Awareness on ISO 45001:2014 according to PCAB

Category( Seminar / Training, Exposure like Heard / Seen, Actual

Learning from Company, School Learning)

Table 14 shows the summary of the knowledge awareness of the

respondents to ISO 45001:2014. Based on PCAB Category, both of PCAB

Category B companies and Category C companies were very familiar with ISO

45001:2014. PCAB Category A companies and PCAB Category D companies

were only somewhat familiar with ISO 45001:2014.

Table 14
Level of Awareness of Construction Firm Respondents according to PCAB Category
CATEGORY WEIGHTED DESCRIPTION
MEAN
A 2 Somewhat Familiar
B 2.5 Very Familiar
C 2.5 Very Familiar
D 2 Somewhat Familiar

Knowledge scale differences of Construction Firm according to Number of

Employees. Figure 9 shows the awareness of ISO 45001:2014 according to

38
Number of Employees. Out of 12 construction companies, only one (1)

construction firm under micro were aware of ISO 45001:2014. Seven (7) of

construction firms under small were aware and two (2) of construction companies

were not aware. Four (4) of construction firms under medium were aware.

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Micro (1-9) Small (10-99) Medium (100-199)

Figure 9.Awareness of ISO 45001:2014 according to Number of

Employees( Yes, No)

Figure 10 shows the source of awareness on ISO 4500:2014. Out of 10

companies aware of ISO 45001:2014, four (4) companies became aware through

seminars and training,which the three (3) were medium sized company and one

(1) from small sized company. Six (6) companies learn from Exposure to ISO

45001:2014 via means of hearing and seeing in which three (3) were medium

sized company, two (2) were small sized company, and one (1) was micro sized

company. Three (3) companies were self-taught in which two (2) were medium

sized company and one (1) was from small sized company No company learn ISO

45001:2014 from schools.

39
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Micro (1-9) Small (10-99) Medium (100-199)

Figure 10.Source of Awareness on ISO 45001:2014 according to Number of

Employees( Seminar / Training, Exposure like Heard / Seen, Actual

Learning from Company, School Learning)

Table 15 shows the summary of the knowledge awareness of the

respondents to ISO 45001:2014. Based on number of employees of the company,

medium sized companies were very familiar with ISO 45001:2014. Small sized

companies were only somewhat familiar with ISO 45001:2014. Micro sized

companies were only one (1) company aware but not familiar with ISO

45001:2014.

Table 15
Level of Awareness of Construction Firm Respondents according to Number of
Employees
NO. OF WEIGHTED DESCRIPTION
EMPLOYEES MEAN
Micro (1-9) 1 Aware but not Familiar
Small (10-99) 2.2 Somewhat Familiar
Medium (100-199) 2.5 Very Familiar

40
Knowledge scale differences of Construction Firm according to Years of

Operation. Figure 11 shows the awareness on ISO 45001:2014 of construction

companies according to Years of Operation. Out of 12 construction companies,

ten (10) companies were aware on ISO 45001 which two (2) each companies

were aware both 6 to 15 years and more than 20 years existed company, five (5)

companies were years of operation from 16 to 20 years and one (1) company was

years of operation of 11 to 15 years. Two (2) companies were not aware of ISO

45001.

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1 - 5 yrs. 6 - 10 yrs. 11 - 15 yrs. 16 - 20 yrs. > 20 yrs.

Figure 11. Awareness of ISO 45001:2014 according to Years of

Operation( Yes, No)

In Figure 12, out of 10 companies aware of ISO 45001:2014, four (4)

companies became aware through Seminars and training in which the two (2)

were companies with 16 to 20 years of operation and two (2) were companies

with more than 20 years of operation. Six (6) companies learn from Exposure to

ISO 45001:2014 via means of hearing and seeing in which four (4) were from

41
companies with 16 to 20 years of operation, one (1) was from companies with 11

to 15 years of operation and one (1) from companies with more than 20 years of

operation. Three (3) companies were self-taught in which two (2) each were

from companies with 6 to 10 years of operation and one (1) from companies with

more than 20 years of operation. No company learned ISO 45001:2014 from

schools.

0
1 - 5 yrs. 6 - 10 yrs. 11 - 15 yrs. 16 - 20 yrs. > 20 yrs.

Figure 12. Sources of Awareness on ISO 45001:2014 according to Years of

Operation( Seminar / Training, Exposure like Heard / Seen, Actual

Learning from Company, School Learning)

Table 16 shows the summary of the knowledge awareness of the

respondents to ISO 45001:2014.Based on years of operation, companies with 6 to

10 years of operation and 11 to 15 years of operation are very familiar with ISO

45001:2014. Companies with 16 to 20 years of operation are somewhat familiar

with ISO 45001:2014. Companies with more than 20 years are aware but not

42
familiar.None of the respondents with 1 to 5 years of operation are aware of ISO

45001:2014.

Table 16
Level of Awareness of Construction Firm Respondents according to Years of Operations
YEARS OF WEIGHTED DESCRIPTION
OPERATION MEAN
1 - 5 yrs. 0 N/A
6 - 10 yrs. 2.5 Very Familiar
11 - 15 yrs. 3 Very Familiar
16 - 20 yrs. 2.2 Somewhat Familiar
> 20 yrs. 1.5 Aware but not Familiar

Knowledge scale differences of Construction Firm according to Type of

Services.In Figure 13 shows the awareness on ISO 45001 of construction

companies according to type of services. Out of 12 construction companies, 2

companies were aware of ISO 45001 and 2 companies were not aware from

General Building (GB). Only 1 company was aware from General Engineering

(GE). 4 companies were aware on ISO 45001 with services both General Building

and General Engineering. And lastly, 3 companies were aware of ISO 45001:2014

and none companies were not aware of ISO 45001.

43
5

0
GB GE GB & GE Specialty

Figure 13. Awareness of ISO 45001:2014 according to Type of Services( Yes,

No)

Figure 14 shows out of 10 companies aware of ISO 45001,four (4)

companies became aware through Seminars and training in which the two (2)

were companies offering specialty services and one (1) each from companies

offering only GB services and companies offering both GB and GE services. Six

(6) companies learn from Exposure to ISO45001via means of hearing and seeing

in which three (3) were from companies offering both GB and GE, two (2) were

from companies offering specialty services, and one (1) was from companies

offering only GB services. Three (3) companies were self-taught in which two (2)

were from companies offering both GB and GE services and one (1) was from

companies offering only GE services. No company learn ISO 45001from schools

44
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
GB GE GB & GE Specialty

Figure 14. Sources of Awareness on ISO 45001:2014 according to Type of

Services ( Seminar / Training, Exposure like Heard / Seen, Actual

Learning from Company, School Learning)

Table 17 shows the summary of the knowledge awareness of the

respondents to ISO 45001. Based on the type of service offered, companies that

offers both GB and GE service very familiar with ISO 45001. Companies offering

only GE services and companies offering specialty services were only somewhat

familiar with ISO 45001 and companies offering only GB was only aware but not

familiar with ISO 45001.

Table 17
Level of Awareness of Construction Firm Respondents according to Types of Services
TYPE OF WEIGHTED DESCRIPTION
SERVICES MEAN
GB 1.5 Aware but not Familiar
GE 2 Somewhat Familiar
GB & GE 2.75 Very Familiar
Specialty 2 Somewhat Familiar

45
Practices differences Level of Construction Firm according to Profile

Factors. Table 18 summarizes the number of respondents in the construction

firms who are implementing ISO 45001:2014 when grouped according to profile

factors.

Table 18
Practice Scale Differences of Construction Firm Respondents according to Profile
Factors
PRACTICES

IMPLEMENTING ISO 45001:2014


A. DISTRICT YES NO
I 2 0
II 3 5
III 2 0
IV 0 0
B. CATEGORY
A 3 0
B 1 1
C 1 2
D 2 2
D YEARS OF OPERATION

1 - 5 yrs. 0 0
6 - 10 yrs. 2 2
11 - 15 yrs. 1 0
16 - 20 yrs. 2 3
> 20 yrs. 2 0
E NO. OF EMPLOYEES

Micro (1-9) 0 1
Small (10-99) 4 3
Medium (100-199) 3 1
F TYPE OF SERVICES

GB 1 3
GE 1 0
GB & GE 4 0
Specialty 1 2

46
Practices scale differences of Construction Firms according to PCAB

Category.Based on the data gathered the researchers found out that practices

concerning safety deviate in different Category of PCAB License Company as

illustrated in Figure 15.

Formal Site H&S Inspection

Emergency Medicines

Medical Facility

H&S Committee

External H&S Department

Internal H&S Department

Waste Disposal System

Material Handling and Storage

Construction Safety Signages

Fire Protection Equipment/Facilities

Personal Protective Equipment

Good Housekeeping

Adequate Aisles/Passageways

Management Leadership and Employment…

H & S Training

H & S Policy

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Figure 15. OSHMS Tools and Practices Being Implemented by Construction

Firm according to PCAB Category ( A, B, C, D)

47
The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, nine (9) companies admitted to practice H & S Policy.

Out of the 9 companies that admitted to practice H & S Policy, only three (3)

companies werefrom category A, two (2) companies were from category D, while

the least number of company to practice H & S policy was from category B

having one (1) company practicing H & S Policy.

The researchers ascertained that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, six (6) companies admitted to practice H & S Training.

Out of the 6 companies that admitted to practice H & S training, three (3) of the

companies were from category B, while the least number of company to practice

H &S training were from category, A, B, and D having one (1) company

practicing H & S Training.

The researchers ascertained that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, eight (8) companies admitted to practice Management

Leadership and Employment Involvement. Out of the 8 companies that admitted

to practice Management Leadership and Employment Involvement,only one (1)

companies were from category A and B, two (2) of the companies were category

C and D practicing Management Leadership and Employment Involvement.

The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded, only eight (8) companies admitted to practice Adequate

Aisles/Passageways. Out of the 8 companies that admitted to practice Adequate

Aisles/Passageways, three (3) of the companies were from category C and D, two

48
(2) of the companies were from category A while the least number of company to

practice Adequate Aisles/Passageways were from category B having no (0)

company practicing Adequate Aisles/Passageways.

The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, nine (9) companies admitted to practice Good

Housekeeping. Out of the 9 companies that admitted to practice Good

Housekeeping, two (2) of the companies were from category D, three (3) of the

companies were from category A and C, while the least number of company to

practice Good Housekeeping was from category B, having one (1) company

practicing Good Housekeeping.

The researchers disclosed that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, twelve (12) companies admitted to practice Personal

Protective Equipment. Out of the 12 companies that admitted to practice Personal

Protective Equipment, four (4) of the companies were from category D, three (3)

of the companies were from category A and C, two (2) company were from

category B practicing Personal Protective Equipment.

The researchers disclosed that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, eight (8) companies admitted to practice Fire Protection

Equipment/Facilities. Out of the 8 companies that admitted to practice Fire

Protection Equipment/Facilities, three (3) of the companies were from category A

and C, while the least number of company to practice Fire Protection

49
Equipment/Facilities were from category B and D having one (1) company

practicing Fire Protection Equipment/Facilities.

The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, eleven (11) companies admitted to practice Construction

Safety Signages. Out of the 11 companies that admitted to practice Construction

Safety Signages, four (4) of the companies were from category D, three (3) of the

companies were from category C, two (2) company were from category A and B

practicing Construction Safety Signages.

The researchers identified that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, seven (7) companies admitted to practice Material

Handling and Storage. Out of the 7 companies admitted to practice Material

Handling and Storage, four (2) of the companies were from category A, C and D,

one (1) of the company was from category B practicing Material Handling and

Storage.

The researchers identified that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, six (6) companies admitted to practice Waste Disposal

System. Out of the 6 companies that admitted to practice Waste Disposal System,

three (3) of the companies were from category A, two (2) of the companies were

from category D, one (1) company was from category C, while the least number

of company to practice Waste Disposal System was from category B having no

(0) company practicing Waste Disposal System.

50
The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, four (4) companies admitted to practice Internal H&S

Department. Out of the 4 companies that admitted to practice Internal H&S

Department, one (1) of the companies was from category A, B, C and D

practicing Internal H&S Department.

The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, three (3) companies admitted to practice External H&S

Department. Out of the 3 companies that admitted to practice External H&S

Department, two (2) of the companies were from category D, one (1) of the

company was from category A practicing External H&S Department.

The researchers determined that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, eight (8) companies admitted to practice H&S

Committee. Out of the 8 companies that admitted to practice H&S Committee,

two (2) of the companies were from category C, one (1) of the companies were

from category B and D, while the least number of company to practice H&S

Committee were from category B and D having no (0) company practicing H&S

Committee.

The researchers determined that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, twelve (12) companies admitted to practice Emergency

Medicines. Out of the 12 companies that admitted to practice Emergency

Medicines, four (4) of the companies were from category D, three (3) of the

51
companies were from category A, two (2) company were from category B

company practicing Emergency Medicines.

The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, eight (8) companies admitted to practice Formal Site

H&S Inspection. Out of the 8 companies that admitted to practice Formal Site

H&S Inspection, three (3) of the companies were from category C, two (2) of the

companies were from category A and D, while the least number of company to

practice Formal Site H&S Inspection were from category B having one (1)

company practicing Formal Site H&S Inspection.

Practice scale differences of Construction Firms according to Number of

Employees.Figure 16 shows the data gathered aboutthe practices concerning

safety deviates with the number of employees in a company.

52
Formal Site H&S Inspection
Emergency Medicines
Medical Facility
H&S Committee
External H&S Department
Internal H&S Department
Waste Disposal System
Material Handling and Storage
Construction Safety Signages
Fire Protection Equipment/Facilities
Personal Protective Equipment
Good Housekeeping
Adequate Aisles/Passageways
Management Leadership and Employment…
H & S Training
H & S Policy

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Figure 16. OSHMS Tools and Practices Being Implemented by Construction Firm

according to Number of Employees( Micro, Small, Medium)

The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, nine (9) companies admitted to practice H & S Policy.

Out of the 9 companies that admitted to practice H & S Policy, six (6) of the

companies were from small sized company, three (3) companies were from

medium sized company, while the least number of company to practice H & S

policy were from micro sized company having no (0) company practicing H & S

Policy.

53
The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, six (6) companies admitted to practice H & S Training.

Out of the 6 companies that admitted to practice H & S training, four (4) of the

companies were from small sized company, two (2) of the companies were from

medium sized company, while the least number of company to practice H & S

training were from category micro sized company having no (0) company

practicing H & S Training.

The researchers disclosed that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, eight (8) companies admitted to practice Management

Leadership and Employment Involvement. Out of the 8 companies that admitted

to practice Management Leadership and Employment Involvement, five (5) of the

companies were from small sized company, two (2) companies were from

medium sized company, while the least number of company to practice

Management Leadership and Employment Involvement were from micro sized

company having one (1) company practicing Management Leadership and

Employment Involvement.

The researchers disclosed that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, eight (8) companies admitted to practice Adequate

Aisles/Passageways. Out of the 8 companies that admitted to practice Adequate

Aisles/Passageways, four (4) of the companies were from small sized company,

three (3) of the companies were from medium sized company, while the least

number of company to practice Adequate Aisles/Passageways was from micro

sized company having one (1) company practicing Adequate Aisles/Passageways.

54
The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, nine (9) companies admitted to practice Good

Housekeeping. Out of the 9 companies that admitted to practice Good

Housekeeping, five (5) of the companies were from small sized company, three

(3) of the companies were from medium sized company, while the least number

of company to practice Good Housekeeping were from micro sized company

having one (1) company practicing Good Housekeeping.

The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, twelve (12) companies admitted to practice Personal

Protective Equipment. Out of the 12 companies that admitted to practice Personal

Protective Equipment, seven (7) of the companies were from small sized

company, four (4) of the companies were from medium sized company, while the

least number of company to practice Personal Protective Equipment were from

micro sized company having one (1) company practicing Personal Protective

Equipment.

The researchers ascertained that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, eight (8) companies admitted to practice Fire Protection

Equipment/Facilities. Out of the 8 companies that admitted to practice Fire

Protection Equipment/Facilities, five (5) of the companies were from small sized

company, three (3) of the companies were from medium sized company, while the

least number of company to practice Fire Protection Equipment/Facilities were

from micro sized company having no (0) company practicing Fire Protection

Equipment/Facilities.

55
The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, eleven (11) companies admitted to practice Construction

Safety Signages. Out of the 11 companies that admitted to practice Construction

Safety Signages, seven (7) of the companies were from small sized company,

three (3) of the companies were from medium, while the least number of company

to practice Construction Safety Signages were from micro sized company having

one (1) company practicing Construction Safety Signages.

The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, seven (7) companies admitted to practice Material

Handling and Storage. Out of the 7 companies that admitted to practice Material

Handling and Storage, four (4) of the companies were from small sized company,

two (2) of the company were from medium sized company, while the least

number of company to practice Material Handling and Storage were from micro

sized company having one (1) company practicing Material Handling and

Storage.

The researchers determined that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, six (6) companies admitted to practice Waste Disposal

System. Out of the 6 companies that admitted to practice Waste Disposal System,

three (3) of the companies were from small sized company, three (3) of the

companies were from medium sized company, while the least number of company

to practice Waste Disposal System were from micro sized company having no (0)

company practicing Waste Disposal System.

56
The researchers determined that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey conducted, four (4) companies admitted to practice

Internal H&S Department. Out of the 4 companies that admitted to practice

Internal H&S Department, three (3) of the companies were from small sized

company, one (1) of the companies was from medium sized company, while the

least number of company to practice Internal H&S Department were from micro

sized company having no (0) company practicing Internal H&S Department.

The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, three (3) companies admitted to practice External H&S

Department. Out of the 3 companies that admitted to practice External H&S

Department, two (2) of the companies were from small sized company, one (1) of

the company was medium sized company, while the least number of company to

practice External H&S Department were from micro sized company having no (0)

company practicing External H&S Department.

The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, eight (8) companies admitted to practice H&S

Committee. Out of the 8 companies that admitted to practice H&S Committee, six

(6) of the companies were from small sized company, two (2) of the companies

were from medium sized company, while the least number of company to practice

H&S Committee were from micro sized company having no (0) company

practicing H&S Committee.

57
The researchers disclosed that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, three (3) companies admitted to practice Medical

Facility. Out of the 3 companies that admitted to practice Medical Facility, two

(2) of the companies were from small sized company, one (1) of the companies

were from medium sized company, while the least number of company to practice

Medical Facility were from category micro sized company having no (0)

company practicing Medical Facility.

The researchers disclosed that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, twelve (12) companies admitted to practice Emergency

Medicines. Out of the 12 companies that admitted to practice Emergency

Medicines, seven (7) of the companies were from small sized company, four (4)

of the companies were from medium sized company, while the least number of

company to practice Emergency Medicines were micro sized company having one

(1) company practicing Emergency Medicines.

The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, eight (8) companies admitted to practice Formal Site

H&S Inspection. Out of the 8 companies that admitted to practice Formal Site

H&S Inspection, five (5) of the companies were from small sized company, three

(3) of the companies were medium sized company, while the least number of

company to practice Formal Site H&S Inspection were from category micro sized

company having no (0) company practicing Formal Site H&S Inspection.

58
Practice scale differences of Construction Firms according to Year of

Operations. Based on the data gathered the researchers in Figure 17 found out

that practices concerning safety deviate in different company based on how many

years the company is operating.

Formal Site H&S Inspection

Emergency Medicines

Medical Facility

H&S Committee

External H&S Department

Internal H&S Department

Waste Disposal System

Material Handling and Storage

Construction Safety Signages

Fire Protection Equipment/Facilities

Personal Protective Equipment

Good Housekeeping

Adequate Aisles/Passageways

Management Leadership and Employment…

H & S Training

H & S Policy

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Figure 17. OSHMS Tools and Practices Being Implemented by Construction Firm

according to Year of Operations( 1 to 5 years, 6 to 10 years, 11 to 15 years, 16 to

20 years, more than 20 years)

59
The researchers found out that out of twelve (12)that companies responded

to the survey, nine (9) companies admitted to practice H & S Policy. Out of the 9

companies that admitted to practice H & S Policy, three (3) were from companies

with 6 to 10 years of operation and from companies with 16 to 20 years of

operation,one (1) were from companies with 11 to 15 years of operation, two (2)

were from companies with more than 20 years of operation, while the least

number of company to practice H & S policy were from companies with 1 to 5

years of operation having no (0) company practicing H & S Policy.

The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, six (6) companies admitted to practice H & S Training.

Out of the 6 companies that admitted to practice H & S training, three (3) were

from companies with 6 to 10 years of operation, two (2) were from companies

with 16 to 20 years of operation, one (1) were from companies with more than 20

years of operation, while the least number of company to practice H & S training

were from companies with 1 to 5 years of operation and from company with 11 to

15 years of operation having no (0) company practicing H & S Training.

The researchers disclosed that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, eight (8) companies admitted to practice Management

Leadership and Employment Involvement. Out of the 8 companies that admitted

to practice Management Leadership and Employment Involvement, three (3) were

from companies with 6 to 10 years of operation and from companies with 16 to 20

years of operation, one (1) were from companies with 16 to 20 years of operation

and from companies with more than 20 years of operation, while the least number

60
of company to practice Management Leadership and Employment Involvement

were from companies with 1 to 5 years of operation (0) company practicing

Management Leadership and Employment Involvement.

The researchers disclosed that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, eight (8) companies admitted to practice Adequate

Aisles/Passageways. Out of the 8 companies that admitted to practice Adequate

Aisles/Passageways, four (4) were from companies with 16 to 20 years of

operation, two (2) were from companies with 6 to 10 years of operation, one (1)

werefrom companies with 6 to 10 years of operation and from companies with

more than 20 years of operation, while the least number of company to practice

Adequate Aisles/Passageways were from companies with 1 to 5 years of

operation no (0) company practicing Adequate Aisles/Passageways.

The researchers ascertained that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, nine (9) companies admitted to practice Good

Housekeeping. Out of the 9 companies that admitted to practice Good

Housekeeping, four (4) were from companies with 16 to 20 years of operation,

three (3) were from companies with 6 to 10 years of operation, two (2) were from

companies with more than 20 years of operation, while the least number of

company to practice Good Housekeeping werefrom companies with 11 to 15

years of operation and from companies with 1 to 5 years of operation having no

(0) company practicing Good Housekeeping.

61
The researchers ascertained that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, twelve (12) companies admitted to practice Personal

Protective Equipment. Out of the 12 companies that admitted to practice Personal

Protective Equipment, five (5) were from companies with 16 to 20 years of

operation, four (4) were from companies with 6 to 10 years of operation, two (2)

were from companies with more than 20 years of operation, one (1) were from

companies with 11 to 15 years of operation, while the least number of company to

practice Personal Protective Equipment were from companies with 1 to 5 years of

operation having no (0) company practicing Personal Protective Equipment.

The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, fifteen (8) companies admitted to practice Fire Protection

Equipment/Facilities. Out of the 8 companies that admitted to practice Fire

Protection Equipment/Facilities, three (3) were from companies with 6 to 10 years

of operation and companies with 16 to 20 years of operation, two (2) were from

companies with more than 20 years of operation, while the least number of

company to practice Fire Protection Equipment/Facilities were from were from

companies with 1 to 5 years of operation and from companies with 11 to 15 years

of operation having no (0) company practicing Fire Protection

Equipment/Facilities.

The researchers disclosed that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, eleven (11) companies admitted to practice Construction

Safety Signages. Out of the 11 companies that admitted to practice Construction

Safety Signages, four (4) were from companies with 6 to 10 years of operation

62
and from companies with 16 to 20 years of operation, two (2) were from

companies with more than 20 years of operation, one (1) was from companies

with 11 to 15 years of operation, while the least number of company to practice

Construction Safety Signages were from companies with 1 to 5 years of operation

having no (0) company practicing Construction Safety Signages.

The researchers determined that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, seven (7) companies admitted to practice Material

Handling and Storage. Out of the 7 companies that admitted to practice Material

Handling and Storage, three (3) were from companies with 16 to 20 years of

operation, two (2) were from companies with 6 to 10 years of operation and

companies with more than 20 years of operation, while the least number of

company to practice Material Handling and Storage were from companies with 1

to 5 years of operation andfrom companies with 11 to 15 years of operation

having no (0) company practicing Material Handling and Storage.

The researchers determined that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, six (6) companies admitted to practice Waste Disposal

System. Out of the 6 companies that admitted to practice Waste Disposal System,

two (2) were from companies with 16 to 20 years of operation andfrom

companies with more than 20 years of operation, one (1) werefrom companies

with 6 to 10 years of operation and from companies with 11 to 15 years of

operation, while the least number of company to practice Waste Disposal System

were from companies with 1 to 5 years of operation having no (0) company

practicing Waste Disposal System.

63
The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, four (4) companies admitted to practice Internal H&S

Department. Out of the 4 companies that admitted to practice Internal H&S

Department, two (2) were from companies with 6 to 10 years of operation, one (1)

was from companies with 16 to 20 years of operation and from companies with 11

to 15 years of operation, while the least number of company to practice Internal

H&S Department were from companies with 1 to 5 years of operation and from

companies with more than 20 years of operation having no (0) company

practicing Internal H&S Department.

The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, three (3) companies admitted to practice External H&S

Department. Out of the 3 companies that admitted to practice External H&S

Department, two (2) were from companies with 16 to 20 years of operation, one

(1) were from companies with 6 to 10 years of operation, while the least number

of company to practice External H&S Department were from companies with 1 to

5 years of operation, companies with 11 to 15 years of operation, and companies

with more than 20 years of operation, having no (0) company practicing External

H&S Department.

The researchers disclosed that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, eight (8) companies admitted to practice H&S

Committee. Out of the 8 companies that admitted to practice H&S Committee,

four (4) were from companies with 6 to 10 years of operation, two (2) were from

companies with 16 to 20 years of operation, one (1) was from companies with 11

64
to 15 years of operation and from companies with more than 20 years of

operation, while the least number of company to practice H&S Committee were

from companies with 1 to 5 years of operation having no (0) company practicing

H&S Committee.

The researchers disclosed that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, three (3) companies admitted to practice Medical

Facility. Out of the 3 companies that admitted to practice Medical Facility, two

(2) were from companies with 16 to 20 years of operation, one (1) was from

companies with more than 20 years of operation, while the least number of

company to practice Medical Facility were from companies with 1 to 5 years of

operation, companies with 6 to 10 years of operation and companies with 11 to 15

years of operation having no (0) company practicing Medical Facility.

The researchers disclosed that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, twelve (12) companies admitted to practice Emergency

Medicines. Out of the 12 companies that admitted to practice Emergency

Medicines,five (5) were from companies with 16 to 20 years of operation, four

(4) were from companies with 6 to 10 years of operation, two (2) were from

companies with more than 20 years of operation, one (1) were from companies

with 11 to 15 years of operation, while the least number of company to practice

Emergency Medicines were from companies with 1 to 5 years of operation having

no (0) company practicing Emergency Medicines.

65
The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, eight (8) companies admitted to practice Formal Site

H&S Inspection. Out of the 8 companies that admitted to practice Formal Site

H&S Inspection, four (4) were from companies with 16 to 20 years of operation,

three (3) were from companies with 6 to 10 years of operation, one (1) were from

companies with 11 to 15 years of operation, while the least number of company to

practice Formal Site H&S Inspection were from companies with 1 to 5 years of

operation andcompanies with more than 20 years of operation having no (0)

company practicing Formal Site H&S Inspection.

Practice scale differences of Construction Firms according to Type of

Construction Services.Based on the data gathered the researchers in Figure 18

found that practices concerning safety deviates with the type of services the

company is offering.

66
Formal Site H&S Inspection
Emergency Medicines
Medical Facility
H&S Committee
External H&S Department
Internal H&S Department
Waste Disposal System
Material Handling and Storage
Construction Safety Signages
Fire Protection Equipment/Facilities
Personal Protective Equipment
Good Housekeeping
Adequate Aisles/Passageways
Management Leadership and Employment…
H & S Training
H & S Policy

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Figure 18. OSHMS Tools and Practices Being Implemented by Construction Firm

according to Type of Services( General Building, General Engineering, Both

General Building and General Engineering, Specialty)

The researchers disclosed that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, nine (9) companies admitted to practice H & S Policy.

Out of the 9 companies that admitted to practice H & S Policy, four (4) were from

companies offering both GB and GE services, three (3) were from companies

were offering only GB services, while the least number of company to practice H

& S policy were from company offering special services andcompanies were

offering only GE services having one (1) company practicing H & S Policy.

67
The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, six (6) companies admitted to practice H & S Training.

Out of the 6 companies that admitted to practice H & S training, two (2) were

from companies offering both GB and GE services and from companies offering

GB services, while the least number of company to practice H & S training were

from companies offering GE services and companies offering special services

having one (1) company practicing H & S Training.

The researchers disclosed that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, eight (8) companies admitted to practice Management

Leadership and Employment Involvement. Out of the 8 companies that admitted

to practice Management Leadership and Employment Involvement, three (3) were

from companies offering both GB and GE services, two (2) were from companies

offering only GB services and companies offering special services, while the least

number of company to practice Management Leadership and Employment

Involvement were from companies offering only GE services having one (1)

company practicing Management Leadership and Employment Involvement.

The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, eight (8) companies admitted to practice Adequate

Aisles/Passageways. Out of the 8 companies that admitted to practice Adequate

Aisles/Passageways, four (4) were from companies offering both GB and GE

services, two (2) were from companies offering special services and companies

offering only GB services, while the least number of company to practice

68
Adequate Aisles/Passageways were from companies offering only GE services

having one (1) company practicing Adequate Aisles/Passageways.

The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies who

responded to the survey, nine (9) companies admitted to practice Good

Housekeeping. Out of the 9 companies that admitted to practice Good

Housekeeping, three (3) were from companies offering both GB and GE services

and companies offering only GB services, two (2) were from companies offering

special services, while the least number of company to practice Good

Housekeeping were from company offering only GE services having one (1)

company practicing Good Housekeeping.

The researchers ascertainedthat out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, twelve (12) companies admitted to practice Personal

Protective Equipment. Out of the 12 companies that admitted to practice Personal

Protective Equipment, four (4) were from companies offering both GB and GE

services and companies offering only GB services, three (3) were from companies

offering special services, while the least number of company to practice Personal

Protective Equipment were from companies offering only GE services having one

(1) company practicing Personal Protective Equipment.

The researchers ascertained that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, eight (8) companies admitted to practice Fire Protection

Equipment/Facilities. Out of the 8 companies that admitted to practice Fire

Protection Equipment/Facilities, three (3) were from companies offering both GB

69
and GE services and companies offering only GB services, while the least number

of company to practice Fire Protection Equipment/Facilities were from companies

offering special services andcompanies offering only GE services having only one

(1) company practicing Fire Protection Equipment/Facilities.

The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, eleven (11) companies admitted to practice Construction

Safety Signages. Out of the 11 companies that admitted to practice Construction

Safety Signages, four (4) were from companies offering only GB services, three

(3) were from companies offering special services andcompanies offering both

GB and GE services, while the least number of company to practice Construction

Safety Signages were from companies offering only GE services having one (1)

company practicing Construction Safety Signages.

The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, seven (7) companies admitted to practice Material

Handling and Storage. Out of the 7 companies that admitted to practice Material

Handling and Storage, two (2) were from companies offering special

services,companies offering only GB services and companies offering both GB

and GE services, while the least number of company to practice Material

Handling and Storage were from companies offering GE services having one (1)

company practicing Material Handling and Storage.

The researchers determined that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, six (6) companies admitted to practice Waste Disposal

70
System. Out of the 6 companies that admitted to practice Waste Disposal System,

four (4) were from companies offering both GB and GE, one (1) were from

companies offering special services and companies offering only GB services,

while the least number of company to practice Waste Disposal System were from

companies offering only GE services having no (0) company practicing Waste

Disposal System.

The researchers determined that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, four (4) companies admitted to practice Internal H&S

Department. Out of the 4 companies that admitted to practice Internal H&S

Department, two (2) were from companies offering both GB and GE services, one

(1) were from companies offering only GE services andcompanies offering

special services, while the least number of company to practice Internal H&S

Department were from companies offering only GB services, having no (0)

company practicing Internal H&S Department.

The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, three (3) companies admitted to practice External H&S

Department. Out of the 3 companies admitted to practice External H&S

Department, two (2) were from companies offering GB services,one (1) was from

companies offering special services, while the least number of company to

practice External H&S Department were from companies offering only GE

services and company offering both GB and GE services having no (0) company

practicing External H&S Department.

71
The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, eight (8) companies admitted to practice H&S

Committee. Out of the 8 companies that admitted to practice H&S Committee,

three (3) were from companies offering both GB and GE services and companies

offering only GB services, while the least number of company to practice H&S

Committee were from companies offering only GE services and companies

offering special services having one (1) company practicing H&S Committee.

The researchers ascertained that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, three (3) companies admitted to practice Medical

Facility. Out of the 3 companies that admitted to practice Medical Facility, two

(2) were from companies offering only GB, one (1) was from companies offering

special services, while the least number of company to practice Medical Facility

were from companies offering only GE services and companies offering both GB

and GE services having no (0) company practicing Medical Facility.

The researchers ascertained that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, twelve (12) companies admitted to practice Emergency

Medicines. Out of the 12 companies that admitted to practice Emergency

Medicines, four (4) were from companies offering both GB and GE services and

companies offering only GB services, three (3) were from companies offering

special services, while the least number of company to practice Emergency

Medicines were from companies offering only GE services having one (1)

company practicing Emergency Medicines.

72
The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that

responded to the survey, eight (8) companies admitted to practice Formal Site

H&S Inspection. Out of the 8 companies that admitted to practice Formal Site

H&S Inspection, three (3) were from companies offering both GB and GE

services and companies offering only GB services, two (2) were from companies

offering special services, while the least number of company to practice Formal

Site H&S Inspection were from companies offering GE services having no (0)

company practicing Formal Site H&S Inspection.

Significant Differences in Level of Severity according to their Profile Factors

The significant differences among the construction firms with regards to level of

severity according to variables (PCAB Category, District, Number of Employees, Years

of Operation and Type of Services) are presented in this section. All data were gathered

using chi-square method.

PCAB Category.Table 19 shows the significant differences among construction

firms with regards to level of severity according Category of PCAB. All results

on minor and major non-fatal accidents and fatal accidents failed the test.

73
Table 19
Severity Level of Construction Firm Respondents according to PCAB Category
Chi-Squared 7.945455018
df = 10 Sig =
0.000
Minor Accidents Major Accident Fatal Accident Total Accident
PCAB Category N MIAR% N MAR% N FAR% N TAR%
A 13* 4.87 0* 0 1* 12.5 14 3.79
B 1* 0.37 0* 0 0* 0 1 0.27
C 222* 83.15 85* 90.43 7* 87.5 314 85.09
D 31* 11.61 9* 9.57 0* 0 40 10.84
TOTAL Column 267 94 8 369
* :Corrected Standardized Residual < 1.96 in absolute value.

In minor non-fatal accident, the observed value for Category A was 13, for

Category B was 1, for Category C was 222, and for Category D were 31. The

expected value from the formula of expected frequency were 10.13 for Category

A, 0.724 for Category B, 227.203 for Category C, and 28.94 for Category D.

Computing the absolute value of the difference between the observed value and

the expected value divided by the square root of the chi-square value, the result

were 0.901731361 for Category A,0.324369341 for Category B, 0.324369341

for category C, and0.382351254 for Category D. The values gathered were all

less than 1.96 which is the acceptable value for the Corrected Standardized

Residual (CSR) Value. All of the Categories on the table failed on the test in

minor non-fatal accident.

In major non-fatal accident, the observed value for Category A was 0, for

Category B was 0, for Category C was 85 and for Category D were 9. The

expected value from the formula of expected frequency were 3.566 for Category

A, 0.255 for Category B, 79.989 for Category C and 10.19 for Category D.

74
Computing absolute value of the difference between the observed value and the

expected value divided by the square root of the chi-square value the resultfor

Category A was 1.888385554, for Category B was 0.504975247, for Category C

was 0.560285353, for Category D was 0.372786236. The values gathered

were all less than 1.96 which is the acceptable value for the Corrected

Standardized Residual (CSR) Value. All of the PCAB Category included on the

table failed on the test in major non-fatal accident.

In fatal accident, the observed value for Category A was 1, the observed

value for Category B was 0, the observed value for Category C was 7 and the

observed value for Category D was 0. The expected value from the formula of

expected frequency were 0.304 for Category A, 0.022 for Category B, 6.808 for

Category C and 0.867 for Category D. Computing the absolute value of the

difference between the observed value and the expected value divided by the

square root of the chi-square value the result for Category A was 1.262328675,

for Category B was 0.14832397, for Category C was 0.073585366 and for

Category D was 0.931128348. The values gathered were all less than 1.96 which

is the acceptable value for the Corrected Standardized Residual (CSR) Value. All

of the PCAB Category included on the table failed on the test in fatal accident.

Analyzing the relationship between the PCAB Category of the company

and severity using chi-square test method, the researchers found out that there is

no relationship between severity and the PCAB Category of the company. The

summation of all the square of the difference of the observe value and expected

value divided by the expected value was 7.945 which is less than the tabulated

75
chi-square value of 12.592. The researchers found out that the hypothesis that

there is no relationship between the PCAB categoryand severity is null and have

the possibility to be an acceptable hypothesis. To strengthen the claim where the

hypothesis is null and acceptable, the researchers found out that the CSR value

for the minor non-fatal accident, major non-fatal accident and fatal accidents are

acceptable and with this the hypothesis is proven possible hence the research

hypothesis is acceptable.

District.Table 20 shows the significant differences among the construction firms

with regards to level of severity according Category of PCAB. Both results on

minor and major non-fatal accidents on district I, II, III and IV failed the test.

Table 20
Severity Level of Construction Firm Respondents according to District
Chi-Squared 11.18240232
df = 8 Sig =
0.000
Minor Accidents Major Accident Fatal Accident Total Accident
District N MIAR% N MAR% N FAR% N TAR%
I 3* 1.12 2* 2.13 1 12.5 6 1.63
II 41* 15.36 7* 7.45 0* 0 48 13.01
III 223* 83.52 85* 90.43 7* 87.5 315 85.37
IV 0* 0 0* 0 0* 0 0 0
TOTAL Column 267 94 8 369
* :Corrected Standardized Residual < 1.96 in absolute value.

In minor non-fatal accident, the observed value for District 1 was 3, the

observed value for District II was 41, the observed value for District III was 223

and the observed value for District IV was 0. The expected value from the

formula of expected frequency was 4.341 for District I, 34.732 for District II,

76
227.927 for District III, and 0 for District IV. Computing the absolute value of the

difference between the observed value and the expected value divided by the

square root of the chi-square value the result for District I was 0.643626453, for

District II was 1.063565134, for District III was 0.326350795, for District IV was

N/A. The values gathered were all less than 1.96 which is the acceptable value for

the Corrected Standardized Residual (CSR) Value. All of the Districts included on

the table failed on the test in minor non-fatal accident.

In major non-fatal accident, the observed value for District 1 was 2, the

observed value for District II was 7, the observed value for District III was 85,

and the observed value for District IV was 0. The expected value from the

formula of expected frequency was 1.528 for District I, 12.228 for District II,

80.244 for District III and 0 for District IV. Computing absolute value of the

difference between the observed value and the expected value divided by the

square root of the chi-square value the result for District I was 0.381839033, for

District II was 1.49505739, for District III was0.530927916, and for District IV

was N/A. The values gathered were all less than 1.96 which is the acceptable

value for the Corrected Standardized Residual (CSR) Value. All of the Districts

included on the table failed on the test in major non-fatal accident.

Comparing the district where the company is located, the researchers

found out using chi-square method that the results in fatal accident have an effect

on severity. In fatal accidents, the observed value for District I was 1, for District

III was 7, and for District II and IV were 0 while the expected value from the

formula of expected frequency were 0.13 for District I, 1.041 for District II, 6.829

77
for District III and 0 for District 4. Computing the absolute value of the difference

between the observed value and the expected value divided by the square root of

the chi-square value, the result were2.412945854 for District I, 1.020294075 for

District II, 0.065436122 for District III and N/A for District IV wherein the value

for District I was greater than the accepted value for Corrected Standardized

Residual (CSR) value of 1.96 while District II, III and IV were less than the

accepted value for CSR of 1.96.

Analyzing the relationship between the district where the company is

located and severity using chi-square test method, the researchers found out that

there is no relationship between severity and the district where the company is

located. The summation of all the square of the difference of the observe value

and expected value divided by the expected value was 11.182 which is less than

the tabulated chi-square value of 12.592. The researchers found out that the

hypothesis that there is no relationship between the district where the company is

located and severity can be null and have the possibility to be an acceptable

hypothesis. But the researchers found out that the CSR value for the fatal

accidents in District 1 is not acceptable and with this the hypothesis is proven

possible hence the research hypothesis is not acceptable.

Number of Employees.Table 21 shows the significant differences among the

construction firms with regards to number of employees.All results on minor and

major non-fatal accidents and fatal accidents not failed the test.

78
Table 21
Severity Level of Construction Firm Respondents according to Number of Employees
Chi-Squared 22.06452236
df = 4 Sig =
0.000
Minor Accidents Major Accident Fatal Accident Total Accident
Number of N MIAR% N MAR% N FAR% N TAR%
Employees
Micro (1-9) 0* 0 0* 0 0* 0 0 0
Small (10-99) 266* 99.63 94* 100 7* 87.5 367 99.46
Medium (100- 1* 0.37 0* 0 1 12.5 2 0.54
199)
TOTAL Column 267 94 8 369
* :Corrected Standardized Residual < 1.96 in absolute value.

In minor non-fatal accident, the observed value for micro company was 0,

for small company was 266, and for medium company was 1. The expected

values from the formula of expected frequency were 0 for micro company,

265.553 for small company and 1.447 for medium company. Computing the

absolute value of the difference between the observed value and the expected

value divided by the square root of the chi-square value, the result were N/A for

micro company, 0.027430386 for small company and 0.371597906 for medium

company. The values gathered were all less than 1.96 which is the acceptable

value for the Corrected Standardized Residual (CSR) Value. Micro company,

small company, and medium company failed on the test in minor non-fatal

accident.

In major non-fatal accident, the observed value was 0 for micro company,

94 for small company, and 0for medium company. The expected values from the

formula of expected frequency were 0 for micro company, 93.491 for small

company, and 0.509 for medium company. Computing the absolute value of the

79
difference between the observed value and the expected value divided by the

square root of the chi-square value the result for micro company was N/A for

micro company, 0.05264206 for small company, and 0.713442359 for medium

company. The values gathered were all less than 1.96 which is the acceptable

value for the Corrected Standardized Residual (CSR) Value. Micro company,

small company and medium company failed on the test in major non-fatal

accident.

In fatal accident, the observed value for micro company was N/A, the

observed value for small company was 7, and the observed value for medium

company was 1. The expected values from the formula of expected frequency

were 0 for micro company, 7.957 for small company, and 0.043 for medium

company. Computing the absolute value of the difference between the observed

value and the expected value divided by the square root of the chi-square value

the result for micro company was N/A, for small company was 0.339263594, and

for medium company were 4.615063808. The values gathered were all less than

1.96 which is the acceptable value for the Corrected Standardized Residual (CSR)

Value. Micro and small companies failed on the test fatal accident. Medium

companies reject the null hypothesis.

Analyzing the relationship between the number of employees of the

company and severity using chi-square test method, the researchers found out that

there is no relationship between severity and the number of employees of the

company. The summation of all the square of the difference of the observe value

and expected value divided by the expected value was 22.065 which is greater

80
than the tabulated chi-square value of 9.488. The researchers found out that the

hypothesis that there is a relationship between the district where the company is

located and severity cannot be null and have possibility to be an unacceptable

hypothesis. To strengthen the claim where the hypothesis is null and

unacceptable, the researchers found out that the CSR value for the fatal accidents

in small and micro companies are acceptable while the medium companies are

unacceptable and with this the hypothesis is proven possible hence the research

hypothesis is unacceptable.

Years of Operation.Table 22 shows the significant differences among the

construction firms with regards to year of operation. Results on fatal accidents on

all years of operation not failed the test.

Table 22
Severity Level of Construction Firm Respondents according to Years of Operation
Chi-Squared 51.64103409
df = 8 Sig =
0.000
Minor Accidents Major Accident Fatal Accident Total Accident
Years of N MIAR% N MAR% N FAR% N TAR%
Operation
1 - 5 years 0* 0 0* 0 0* 0 0 0
6 - 10 years 29* 10.86 7* 7.45 7 87.5 43 11.65
11 - 15 years 3* 1.12 2* 2.13 0* 0 5 1.36
16 - 20 years 223* 83.52 85* 90.43 1 12.5 309 83.74
> 20 years 12* 4.49 0* 0 0* 0 12 3.25
TOTAL Column 267 94 8 369
* :Corrected Standardized Residual < 1.96 in absolute value.

81
In minor non-fatal accident, the observed value for company with years of

operation from 1 year to 5 years was 0, the observed value for company with

years of operation from 6 years to 10 years was 29, the observed value for

company with years of operation from 11 years to 15 years was 3, the observed

value for company with years of operation from 16 years to 20 was 223 and the

observed value for company with years operation exceeding 20 was 12. The

expected value from the formula of expected frequency were 0 for company with

years of operation from 1 to 5 years, 31.114 for company with years of operation

from 6 years to 10 years, 3.618 for company with years of operation from 11

years to 15 years, 223.585 for company with years of operation from 16 years to

20 years and 8.683 for company with greater than 20 years of operation.

Computing absolute value of the difference between the observed value and the

expected value divided by the square root of the chi-square value the result for

company with years of operation from 1 year to 5 years was N/A, for company

with years of operation from 6 year to 10 years was 0.378989396, for company

with years of operation from 11 year to 15 years was 0.324903353, for company

with years of operation from 16 year to 20 years was 0.039123215, and

1.12566865 for company with more than 20 years of operation. The values

gathered were all less than 1.96 which is the acceptable value for the Corrected

Standardized Residual (CSR) Value. All years of operation of the company on the

table failed on the test in minor non-fatal accident.

In major non-fatal accident, the observed value for company with years of

operation from 1 year to 5 years was 0, the observed value for company with

82
years of operation from 6 years to 10 years was 7, the observed value for

company with years of operation from 11 years to 15 years was 2, the observed

value for company with years of operation from 16 years to 20 years was 85 and

for company with more than 20 years of operation was 0. The expected value

from the formula of expected frequency was 0 for company with years of

operation from 1 year to 5 years, 10.954 for company with years of operation

from 6 years to 10 years, 1.274 for company with years of operation from 11

years to 15 years, 78.715 for company with years of operation from 16 years to 20

years, and for company more than 20 years of operation was 3.057. Computing

absolute value of the difference between the observed value and the expected

value divided by the square root of the chi-square value the result for company

with years of operation from 1 year to 5 years was N/A, for company with years

of operation from 6 years to 10 years was 1.194676433, for company with years

of operation from 11 years to 15 years was 0.643208695, for company with years

of operation from 16 years to 20 years was 0.708396704, and for company with

more than 20 years of operation was 1.748427865. The values gathered were all

less than 1.96 which is the acceptable value for the Corrected Standardized

Residual (CSR) Value. All years of operation of the company on the table failed

on the test in major non-fatal accident.

Comparing all the years of operation of the company, the researchers

found out using chi-square method that the results in fatal accident have an effect

on severity. In fatal accidents, the observed value for company with years of

operation from 1 year to 5 years was 0, for company with years of operation from

83
6 years to 10 years was 7, for company with years of operation from 11 years to

15 years was 0, for company with years of operation from 16 years to 20 years

was 1, and for company with more than 20 years of operation was 0. The

expected value from the formula of expected frequency were 0 for company with

years of operation from 1 year to 5 years, 0.932 for company with years of

operation from 6 years to 10 years, 0.108 for company with years of operation

from 11 years to 15 years, 6.699 for company with years of operation from 16

years to 20 years, and 0.26 for company with more than 20 years. Computing

absolute value of the difference between the observed value and the expected

value divided by the square root of the chi-square value the result for company

with years of operation from 1 year to 5 years was N/A, for company with years

of operation from 6 years to 10 years was 6.285467946, for company with years

of operation from 11 years to 15 years was 0.328633535, for company with years

of operation from 16 years to 20 years was 2.201880108 , and for company with

more than 20 years of operation was 0.509901951 wherein the value for company

with years of operation from 6 year to 10 year and for company with years of

operation from 16 years to 20 years were greater than the accepted value for

Corrected Standardized Residual (CSR) value of 1.96 while company with years

of operation from 1 year to 5 years, for company with years of operation from 11

years to 15 years and company with more than 20 years of operation were less

than the accepted value for CSR of 1.96.

Analyzing the relationship between years of operation of the company and

severity using chi-square test method, the researchers found out that there is a

84
relationship between severity and the years of operation of the company. The

summation of all the square of the difference of the observe value and expected

value divided by the expected value was 51.641 which is greater than the

tabulated chi-square value of 15.507. The researchers found out that the

hypothesis that there is a relationship between the years of operation of the

company and severity cannot be null and have the possibility to be an

unacceptable hypothesis. To strengthen the hypothesis, the researchers found out

that the CSR value for the fatal accidents in years of operation from 6 years to 10

years and years of operation from 16 years to 20 years are unacceptable and with

this the hypothesis is proven possible hence the research hypothesis is

unacceptable.

Type of Services. Table 23 shows the significant differences among the

construction firms with regards to type of service. Both results on minor and

major non-fatal accidents on company offering General Building (GB), General

Engineering (GE), both GB and GE and specialty all not failed the test.

85
Table 23
Severity Level of Construction Firm Respondents according to Type of Services
Chi-Squared 216.3517767
df = 6 Sig =
0.000
Minor Accidents Major Accident Fatal Accident Total Accident
Type of Services N MIAR% N MAR% N FAR% N TAR%
General Building 262* 98.13 92* 97.87 0 0 354 95.93
(GB)
General 1* 0.37 0* 0 0* 0 1 0.27
Engineering
(GE)
Both GB and GE 4* 1.5 2* 2.13 7 87.5 13 3.52
Specialty 0* 0 0* 0 1 12.5 1 0.27
TOTAL Column 267 94 8 369 0
* :Corrected Standardized Residual < 1.96 in absolute value.

In minor non-fatal accident, the observed value for company offering GB

was 262, the observed value for company offering GE was 1, the observed value

for company offering GB and GE was 4, and company offering specialty was 0.

The expected value from the formula of expected frequency was 256.146 for

company offering GB, 0.724 for company offering GE, 9.407 for company

offering both GB and GE, and 0.724 for company offering specialty.

Computing absolute value of the difference between the observed value

and the expected value divided by the square root of the chi-square value the

result for company offering GB was 0.365770713, for company offering GE was

0.324369341, for company offering both GB and GE was 1.762912664, and for

company offering specialty was 0.850881895. The values gathered were all less

than 1.96 which is the acceptable value for the Corrected Standardized Residual

(CSR) Value. All of the Districts included on the table failed on the test in minor

non-fatal accident.

86
In major non-fatal accident, the observed value for company offering GB

was 92, the observed value for company offering GE was 0, the observed value

for company offering GB and GE was 2, and company offering specialty was 0.

The expected value from the formula of expected frequency was 90.179 for

company offering GB, 0.255 for company offering GE, 3.312 for company

offering both GB and GE, and 0.255 for company offering specialty. Computing

absolute value of the difference between the observed value and the expected

value divided by the square root of the chi-square value the result for company

offering GB was 0.191759654, for company offering GE was 0.504975247, for

company offering both GB and GE was 0.720922651, and for company offering

specialty was 0.504975247. The values gathered were all less than 1.96 which is

the acceptable value for the Corrected Standardized Residual (CSR) Value. All of

services included on the table failed on the test in major non-fatal accident.

Comparing the type of service offered by the company, the researchers

found out using chi-square method that the results in fatal accident have an effect

on severity. In fatal accidents, the observed value for company offering GB was 0,

the observed value for company offering GE was 0, the observed value for

company offering GB and GE was 7, and company offering specialty was 1. The

expected value from the formula of expected frequency was 7.657 for company

offering GB, 0.022 for company offering GE only and company offering specialty

and 0.282 for company offering both GB and GE. Computing absolute value of

the difference between the observed value and the expected value divided by the

square root of the chi-square value the result for company offering GB

87
was2.770379035, for company offering GE was0.14832397, for company

offering both GB and GE was 12.65072588, and for company offering specialty

was 6.593674655 wherein the value for company offeringspecialty,GB and both

GB and GE were greater than the accepted value for Corrected Standardized

Residual (CSR) value of 1.96 while company offering GE was less than the

accepted value for CSR of 1.96.

Analyzing the relationship between the type of service the company is

offering and severity using chi-square test method, the researchers found out that

there is a relationship between severity and the type service that the company is

offering. The summation of all the square of the difference of the observe value

and expected value divided by the expected value was 216.352 which is greater

than the tabulated chi-square value of 12.592. The researchers found out that the

hypothesis that there is a relationship between the district where the company is

located and severity cannot be null and have the possibility to be an unacceptable

hypothesis. To strengthen the hypothesis, the researchers found out that the CSR

value for the fatal accidents in company offering specialty, GB and both GB and

GE are acceptable and with this the hypothesis is proven possible hence the

research hypothesis is unacceptable.

88
Correlation Analysis of Severity Level of Construction Companies with Grade on

Safety

Based on the data gathered shown in Table 24, the researchers found out using

Pearson’s Correlation analysis that company A4, A5, B5 and C2 obtained the lowest

Total Accident Ratio per company (TAR %) having zero percent (0%). Company B1 and

B2 both obtained a TAR% of 0.27%. Company A1, B3, C1 and A3 obtained 0.81%,

1.35%, 1.89% and 3.23% respectively while company B4 yielded 9.43%. Company A2

has a highest TAR% of 82.75%.

Table 24
Severity Level vs. Grade on Safety Standard
COMPANY TAR% Per Company (Y) GRADE (X)

A1 0.81 3.95
A2 82.75 3.9
A3 3.23 2.375
A4 0 4.675
A5 0 3.425
B1 0.27 3.525
B2 0.27 2.125
B3 1.35 2.775
B4 9.43 3.85
B5 0 2.8
C1 1.89 3.175
C2 0 2.975

Evaluating the grade on safety per company using Pearson’s Correlation

Coefficient on the data gathered the researchers found out that company B2 has the

lowest grade on safety having the grade of 2.125 followed by in ascending order base on

the respective grade of construction firms received, company A3 with 2.375, company

89
B3 with 2.775, company B5 with 2.8, company C2 with 2.975, company C1 with 3.175,

company A5 with 3.425, company B1 with 3.525, company B4 with 3.85, company A2

with 3.9 and company A1 with 3.95. The company that had obtained the highest score on

the grade on safety per company is company A4 with a score of 4.675.

The company that scored the lowest on the grade on safety per company, which is

company B2, did not attain the lowest total accident per company also the company that

scored the highest on the grade on safety per company, which is company A4, did not

attain the highest total accident per company and vice versa.

Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient Method.Analyzing the results, the

researchers found out that there had been no relation between the total accident

ratio and the grade on safety per company. The researchers arrived on this answer

as the analysis showsthat the Pearson’s correlation coefficient (t) gathered from

the survey is less than Pearson’s correlation coefficient based on the number of

companies (ttable). t is computed as the product of r and the square root of the

number of company (N) minus two all over the square root of one minus r raise to

two. R is computed as the product of the number of company (N) multiply by

product of X and Y minus the product of the total X and total Y all over the

square root of product of the total Y multiply by X2 minus the total X raised to

two and the total Y multiply by Y2 minus the total X raised to two. The t yielded

were 0.89 which is lower than the ttablewhich is 1.74. The correlated coefficient

reveals that TAR and grade on safety standards were weak positive correlation.

Figure 19 shows the graph of grade on safety standard and total accident

rate (TAR).

90
90

80

70

60
Total Accident Rate

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Grade on Applictation of Safety Standard

Figure 19. Graph of Grade on Safety Standard vs. Total Accident Rate ( A1, A2, A3,x

A4,x A5, B1,+B2, B3, B4, B5, C1, C2)

Spearman’s Rank Order Coefficient Method.Analyzing the results, the

researchers found out that there had been no relation between the total accident

ratio and the grade on safety per company. The researchers arrived on this answer

as the analysis shown that the spearman’s rank order correlation coefficient (rs)

gathered from the survey is less than spearman’s rank order correlation coefficient

based on the number of companies (rtable). rs is computed as the absolute value of

one minus six of the sum of the difference of Rank Y and Rank X raise to two all

over the number of companies (N) raise to two. The rs yielded were -0.07 which is

91
lower than the rtablewhich is 0.46. The correlated coefficient reveals that TAR and

grade on safety standards were weak negative correlation.

Since the correlation coefficient of both method had a result of no

correlation. This is possible reason such as not giving the actual total accident in

company due to preventing for good company profile and some companies not

reporting an accident whether minor or major accident because companies

considered this can be treated with help of emergency medicines or first aid tool.

92
Conclusion

Significant Difference of Awareness Level according to Profile Factors

The result showed that the level of awareness based on knowledge and practices

have no significant difference according to profile factor.

Significant Difference of Severity Level according to Profile Factors

Using the method of CSR or corrected standardized residual and according to

profile factor with regards to severity, type of services, the result showed that district,

number of employees and years of operation with respect to severity have relationship,

PCAB Category has no relationships. Using the method of chi-square, type of

construction services, number of employees and years of operation have relationship on

severity. The PCAB category and district have no relationship with respect to severity.

Significant Difference between Total Accident Rate (TAR) and Application of Safety

Standard of Each Construction Companies

Based on the result of correlation analysis, the researchers used two methods:

Pearson's Correlation Analysis and Spearman's Rank Order Coefficient. In method of

Pearson's Correlation Analysis there were no linear relationships that exist between Total

Accident Rate (TAR) and Grade on Application of Safety Standards of companies. The

correlated coefficient revealed that TAR and grade on safety standards were weak

positive correlation. In method of Spearman's Rank Order Coefficient there were no

linear relationships that exist between Total Accident Rate (TAR) and Grade on

93
Application of Safety Standards of companies. The correlated coefficient reveals that

TAR and grade on safety standards were weak negative correlation.

Since the correlation coefficient of both method had a result of no correlation.

This is possible reason such as not giving the actual total accident in company due to

preventing for good company profile and some companies not reporting an accident

whether minor or major accident because companies considered this can be treated with

help of emergency medicines or first aid tool.

94
Recommendation

Based on the findings from the study, the following recommendations are

important factors to consider in construction companies and for future researchers.

For Future Researchers: conduct an interview to a safety officer, site engineer or

construction workers to obtain significant information about the construction company’s

safety standard and actual accident rate. Some companies properly list the minor, major

and fatal accident but others choose only fatal accident to record. Elaborate the questioner

for the level of severity and focus on the dangerous accident that occurs most especially

to non-PCAB member.For further studies, it’s recommended to have more sample

population to acquire significant data and valuable conclusion.

For construction industry’s improvement, provide proper training for every

company whether small or medium enterprise and non PCAB license through (BOSH)

Basic Occupational Safety and Health and (COSH) construction occupational Safety and

Health training. Provide a proper list of minor and major accident because other company

considered it as curable and only fatal accident are recorded as accident. Make a weekly

audit in the construction site using safety checklist release by the BWC. The rules in

OSHS must be known, not only for the safety officer but also the site engineer to

implement effectively.Provide written safety program and provide part time safety officer

in every company.

95
96
References

Abbe, O., Harvey, C., Ikuma, L., & Ahhazadeh, f. (2008). A Survey of Occupational

Stress Models, Stressors and Relationship to Injuries.

Alhajeri, M. (2011). Alhajeri, M. (2011) Health and safety in the construction industry:

challenges and solutions in the UAE.(Unpublished Thesis, Coventry University,

Coventry, United Kingdom). Retrieved from:

https://curve.coventry.ac.uk/open/items/8ef107a7-8740-4cb5-ad55-

07449f57cad4/1/Al+Hajeri+2011.pdf

Amiri, M., Ardeshir, A., & Fazel Zarandi, M. H. (2014). Risk-based Analysis of

Construction Accidents in Iran During 2007-2011- Meta Analyze Study. Iranian J

Publ Health, Vol. 43, No.4,, 507-522.

Balabo, D. (2013). Korean dead, 2 hurts in Bulacan Construction Mishop. The Philippine

Star.

Bowen, P., Govender, R., & Edwards, P. (2014). Structural Equation Modeling of

Occupational Stress in the Construction Industry. Journal of Construction

Engineering and Management.

Bureau of Working Conditions. (2015).

Campbell, F. (2006). Occupational Stress in the Construction Industry. London, England:

Chartered Institute of Building.

97
Cheng, C.-W., & Wu, T.-C. (2012). An Investigation and analysis of major accidents

involving foreign workers in Taiwan's manufacture and construction industries.

Safety Science.

Colina, N. (2011). Invisible Victims of Developments.

Colina, N. (2011). Philippines. Institute for Occupational Health and Safety

Development.

Department of Labor and Employment. (1989). Occupational Safety and Health

Standards. Retrieved from Occupational Safety and Health Center Philippines:

http://www.oshc.dole.gov.ph/UserFiles/oshc2010/file/OSH_Standards_Amended

_1989_Latest.pdf

Dumrak, J., Mostafa, S., Kamardeen, I., & Rameezdeen, R. (2013). Factors Associated

with the Severity of Construction Accidents: The Case of South Australia.

Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 32-49.

Ganah, A., & John, G. (2014). Integrating Building Information Modeling and Health and

Safety for Onsite Construction. Safety and Health at Work, 39-45.

Glinow, S. L. (n.d.). Organizational Behavior. Florida: McGraw-Hill Erwin.

Glover, H. (1974). Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. England: Her Majesty's

Stationary Office and Queen's Printer of Acts of Parliament.

Guo, B., Yiu, T. W., & González, V. (2015). Identifying behaviour patterns of

construction safety using system archetypes.

98
Gurcanli, G. E., & Mungen, U. (2013). Analysis of Construction Accidents in Turkey and

Responsible Parties. Industrial Health, 581-595.

Hämäläinen, P., Saarela, K. L., & Takala, J. (2008). Global trend according to estimated

number of occupational accidents and fatal. Journal of Safety Research.

Hea, Q., Dong, S., Rose, T., Li, H., Yin, Q., & Cao, D. (2015). Systematic impact of

institutional pressures on safety climate in the construction industry.

HSE. (2003). Causal factors in construction accidents. Retrieved from Health and Safety

Executive: http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr156.pdf

International Organization for Standardization. (2015). Occupational Health and Safety.

Retrieved from International Organization for Stardardization:

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_45001_briefing_note.pdf

Juanzon, J. B. (2014). Implementing ISO 9001:2008 in the Construction Industry: A

guideline to the Small and Meium Enterprise (SME) Construction Firms in the

Philippines. PICE Procedure. PICE Institute Convention 2014. Cabuyao, Laguna.

Ling, F. Y., Liu, M., & Woo, Y. C. (2008). Construction fatalities in Singapore. Journal

of project management.

McShane, S., & Glinow, M. A. (2005). Organizational Behavior: Emerging Realities for

the Workplace Revolution 4th ed. McGraw-Hill Irwin.

NQA. (2009). OSHAS 18001:2007 Guide to implementing a Health and Safety

Management System. Retrieved from NQA: http://www.nqa.com

99
Pedrosa, V. P. (2010, January 8). Imelda Marcos: The Rise and Fall of One of the

World's Most Powerful Women. Cultural Center of the Philippines.

Philippine Constructors Association, I. (2011). Philippine Construction Association

Country Report. Philippines.

Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers. (2012). Manual of Professional Practice for Civil

Engineers.

Remo, R. (2015, March 9). Construction Industry Seen to Sustain Growth. Philippine

Daily Inquirer.

Santolan, J. (2011, february 1). Ten workers die in contruction accident in the

Philippines. Retrieved September 28, 2015, from World Socialist Web Site:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/02/phil-f01.html

Saurin, T. A. (2008). Safety inspections in construction sites. A systems thinking

perspective.

Stepien, T. (2014). Identification of Factors Determining Accident Rate In Construction

Industry. Technical Transactions: Civil Engineering, 265-281.

Tien, E. T. (2011). Construction Safety: Accident Case Studies & Enforcement Analysis.

Occupational Safety and Health Division.

Tim Howarth, P. W. (2009). Construction Safety Management. Wiley-Blackwell.

100
Appendices

Appendix A
Occupational Health and Safety Standard (Based on Preliminary Questionnaire
Section C and Follow – Up Questionnaire Section B)

RULE 1040: HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEE

The health and safety committee shall be composed of four hundred (400) workers in

every workplace. The composition may vary in different type. From A that is composed

of 400 workers to E that is composed of 2 or more. Each type may or may not have a

Chairman, Department head, secretary, supervisor, nurse or physician and safety man.

The main function of Health and Safety Committee is planning and policy making group

in all matter to safety and health. the committee must cater for the establishment to plan

and develop accidents programs, all effort of accident prevention must be directed to the

establishment in accordance to the safety programs, safety performance and government

regulation in order to prevent accidents from occurring in the workplace, at least a

monthly safety meeting are to be conducted, Implementation of programs, review of

reports of inspection and accident investigation, on meetings and activities a report must

be submitted to the manager, give assistance to the government in inspecting authorities

in the proper conduct of their activities such as implementation of the provision of these

standard. Supervises and Initiates safety training for employees and to maintain and

develop a disaster contingency plan and organizes such emergency service units as may

101
be necessary to handle disaster situation pursuant to the emergency preparedness manual

for establishments of the office of civil defense.

The responsibilities of a safety man are the consultant of the employer, to remove the

hazards from the workplace and to correct unsafe work. Safety man is to serve as a

secretary in meetings, advisor of the employer and workers, conducts investigation and

inspection in accidents and as a coordinator to eliminate accidents.

A qualifies safety consultant is a safety and health practitioner for at least five years and

had undergone training by the Bureau but it the safety and health practitioner has at least

ten year experience, it is not required to undergo training. The Bureau shall accredit and

be registered with the Regional Office all safety consultant or consultant organization.

RULE 1210: ELECTRICAL SAFETY

Steps shall be taken to prevent danger to workers or operating equipment from any live

cable or equipment either by rendering the equipment electrically dead or by preventing

contact before any construction is to be done.

1211: Philippine Electrical Code:

To safeguard any person employed in the workplace and control the practice of

electrical engineering, every personnel must adhere to the safety standards set by The

Philippine Electrical Code.

1212: Electrical Safety Inspection:

1212.01: Definition:

Installation as used in this Rule shall mean assemblage of electrical equipment in a given

location, designed for coordinated operation, properly erected and wired and approved

102
shall mean acceptable to the Bureau after test and examination show compliance with

standards.

1212.02: General Provisions:

First, no electrical installation shall be undertaken without the plans having been

approved by the Secretary or his authorized representative.; No service or power supply

shall be connected to any electrical installation by any utility company supplying

electricity or by any person until the necessary final inspection is conducted and a safety

certificate/permit issued by the Regional Labor Office or authorized representative

having jurisdiction over the case. The electrical installation may be inspected by the

Regional Labor Office or authorized representative, if such poses danger to the safety and

health of the workers therein.

1212.03: Application and Plans:

Construction may be stared only when plan is approved. Projects may or may not need to

submit proposed installation layout with a list materials and devices to be installed and a

signed statement to effect that the plan shall conform to the rules and regulations of the

standards.

A certificate of final inspection shall be secured from the office having jurisdiction after

the construction ensuring service connection, safety permit and installation for one year

counted on the date of the final inspection. The certificate must be filled in by the owner

or his representative before the safety permit expires. For the inspection, safety engineers

of the Regional Labor Office or authorized representative having jurisdiction shall

conduct annual safety inspection on all electrical installation and maintain an effective

records control in order that re-inspection shall not go beyond the expiration date.

103
1214: Requirements in the Preparation of Electrical Plans:

The owner/manager or his authorized representative shall file the required

application for electrical wiring installation in triplicate, accompanied by three copies of

each sheet of plans in white print before the installation. Service drop from the utility

company pole to the building structure and all feeder lines for the location plans, Site of

the compound indicating any known landmarks, private or public buildings.

RULE 1220 ELEVATORS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT

1222: General Provisions:

1222.01: Application:

In an elevator installation or construction, the necessary plans must be triplicate signed

and sealed by a registered professional mechanical engineer for the licensed mechanical

plans and by a professional licensed electrical engineer for the electrical plans. No

elevator shall be installed and/or operated in any place of employment without a written

permit issued for the purpose by the Regional Labor Office or authorized representative

having jurisdiction. Upon completion of the installation and/or construction, a request for

final inspection shall be filed with the Regional Labor Office or authorized representative

having jurisdiction. If such inspection shows compliance with the approved plans,

standards and necessary tests, a permit or certificate shall be issued valid for one year

from the date of final inspection.

1224: Standards Requirements:

104
All inspection, checking, test and other consideration prior to the approval of any

installation and use of any elevator must comply in accordance the latest revisions of

A.S.M.E. Elevator Code and P.S.M.E. CODE.

1225: Requirements in the Preparation of Plans:

the owner/manager or his authorized representative shall file with the Secretary or his

authorized representative an application for mechanical and electrical wiring installation,

to install elevator/manlift/dumbwaiter escalator, and to construct hoistway and install

gates and doors, in triplicate, accompanied by three copies of each sheet of plans in white

print before an elevator (passenger or freight), manlift, dumbwaiter or escalator is

installed. The following shall be incorporated in the plans which show the requirements

as indicated, Location Plans in site of the compound indicating any known landmarks,

such as street, private or public place or building, Electrical Layout, Machine Room,

Hoistway, Car, Cage and Platform, Governor specification and marking plate,

Counterweight, Buffers, Bumpers, Cars and Counterweights, The Pits, Cables, Hoisting

and Suspension Ropes, Design Computation, Clearance of Cars and Counterweights.

RULE 1410 CONSTRUCTION SAFETY

1412: GENERAL PROVISIONS

1412.01: Health and Safety Committee:

At every construction site there shall be organized and maintained a Health and Safety

Committee conforming with Rule 1040 (Health and Safety Committee) and a medical

and dental service conforming with Rule 1960 (Occupational Health Services).

1412.02: Alternative Methods and Materials:

105
In the application of this Rule, the construction, composition, size, and

arrangement of materials used may vary provided that the strength of the structure is at

least equal to that herein prescribed.

1412.03: Electrical:

Before any construction is commenced, and during the construction, steps shall be taken

to prevent danger to the workers or operating equipment from any live electric cable or

equipment either by rendering the cable or apparatus electrically dead or by providing

barriers to prevent contact.

1412.04: Machine Guarding:

All moving parts of machinery used shall be guarded in accordance with the requirements

of Rule 1200 (Machine Guarding).

1412.05: Fire Protection:

Fire protection equipment shall adhere in accordance with the requirements of

Rule 1940. Permanent stand pipe shall be progressively installed in a construction site as

the construction work proceeds. In every storeys, install a valve connected to a host that

is at least 4cm (3/2 in), equip with a straight stream and fog nozzle where every part of

the structure shall be protected by the hose having a length of 25m (75 ft.) and have a

connection size used by the local fire department and is located on the street above

ground level 0.3m to 1m (1ft to 3ft) with clear marking and protection.

1412.06: Lighting of Work Areas:

Every place where raising or lowering operations with the use of a lifting appliance are in

progress, and all openings dangerous to workers, shall be lighted with the minimum

requirements provided in Rule 1210 (Electrical Safety).

106
1412.07: Lifting of Weights:

A male worker shall not be made to lift, carry or move any load over fifty kilograms (50

kgs.) and female workers over twenty-five kilograms (25 kgs.) for a prolong period of

time. Weights over these shall either be handled by more than one worker or by

mechanical means.

1412.08: Pipelines:

Repair work on any section of a pipeline under pressure shall not be undertaken until the

pipeline is released of the pressure or the section under repair is blocked off the line

pressure to ensure that no worker will be endangered.

1412.09: Protection of the Public:

A safe covered walkway shall be constructed over the sidewalk for use by pedestrians in

a building construction work less than 2.3 m. (7 ft.) from a sidewalk or public road.

1412.10: Protection from Falling Materials:

Steps shall be taken to protect workers from falling materials, such as the provision of

safety helmets and safety shoes. Tools, objects and materials (including waste materials)

shall not be thrown or tipped from a height, but shall be properly lowered by crane, hoist

or chutes. If such is not practicable, the area where the material is thrown or lowered shall

be fenced and no person allowed in the fenced area.

1412.11: Protruding Nails and Loose Materials:

Material or lumber with protruding nails shall not be used in any work or be allowed to

remain in any place where they are a source of danger to the workers. Loose materials

shall not be placed or left on working platforms, gangways, floors or other workplaces

but shall be removed, stacked or stored not to obstruct passage. Materials shall not be

107
stacked in a manner causing danger to the workers or overload and render unsafe any

platform, gangway, floor, roof or other part of a building or structure.

1412.12: Protection against Collapse of Structure:

All temporary structure shall be properly supported by the use of guys, stays, and other

fixings necessary for stability during construction.

B. Where construction work will likely reduce the stability of an existing or adjacent

building shoring shall be undertaken to prevent the collapse or fall of any part of the

structure.

1412.13: Safe Means of Access:

Safe means of access and egress shall be provided and maintained to and from every

place where work is undertaken.

1412.14: Storage of Materials:

Building materials and equipment shall not be placed or stored on a permanent or

temporary structure exceeding its safe load carrying capacity. Lumber structural steel and

similar building materials shall be properly stored and secured against collapsing or

tipping. Cross pieces shall be used in a pile of lumber more than 1 m. (3 ft.) high. Pipes

and reinforcing steels shall be stacked in racks or frames supported to prevent movement.

Gangways and platforms shall not be used as storage for materials and tools.

1412.15: Storage of Cylinders:

Compressed gas cylinders shall be stored in upright position protected against heat and

overturning and when not in use, the control valves shall be covered by protective caps

screwed to proper positions.

1412.16: Traffic Control:

108
In construction sites where a worker’s safety is likely to be endangered by a vehicular

traffic, flagmen, warning signs, barriers or lane control devices shall be installed.

1412.17: Vehicular Loading:

No person shall remain on or in a vehicle during loading or unloading except those

required to be there and only when all necessary protection against hazards are provided.

1412.18: Vehicle Driving:

No person shall operate any vehicle or equipment in a construction site unless he has

adequate training and experience to operate such vehicle or equipment and is authorized

by his immediate supervisor.

1412.19: Internal Combustion Engine:

No internal combustion engine shall be operated in an enclosed area unless the exhaust

gases or fumes are discharged directly outside to a point where the discharge gases or

fumes cannot return to the enclosure or the place is ventilated to protect workers from

exhaust gases.

1412.20: Personal Protective Equipment:

Personal Protective equipment as required in Rule 1080 shall be provided the workers.

1412.21: Other Standards:

The provisions of this Rule are minimum requirements and any other regulation of other

government authority of the same nature but with higher numerical values prevail.

1413: EXCAVATION:

1413.01: Shoring and Timbering:

No excavation in an adjacent building or structure shall be undertaken unless

steps are taken to prevent danger to workers. Before shoring or timbering, the walls of an

109
excavation shall be stripped of loose rocks or other materials that might slide, roll or fall

on workers. Every excavation over 1 m. shall be kept free of water at all times. The walls

of every excavation over 1 m. (3 ft.) deep shall be supported by adequate shoring and

timbering to prevent collapse, provided that this shall not apply to an excavation in which

a worker is not required to enter for any purposes, cut in solid rock, the walls are sloped

to forty-five degree angle from the vertical cut to the angle of repose, in which a worker

is engaged in timbering or other work for the purpose of compliance with this Rule if

precautions are taken to ensure his safety. Shoring or timbering in excavation over 6.6 m.

deep and those installed to prevent the movement, collapse of an adjacent structure shall

be designed by a structural engineer and approved by the proper authority.

1413.02: Minimum Berm:

Materials excavated shall be kept at the edge of the excavation at a distance of

less than a third of the excavations depth. When space is limited, the distance shall be

reduced not less than 1m with stability of the excavation in mind.

1413.03: Tools Materials and Machinery:

Tools or materials shall be kept at least 1m away from the excavation to prevent

accidents. No vehicle or machineries shall be located near the excavation at least a

distance of a third of its depth.

1413.04: Provision for Barricades.

The top of the walls of an excavation more than 2.0 m. deep shall be barricaded to a

height of at least 1m to prevent the fall of workers.

1413.05: Means of Access and Escape:

110
For every 1m of the excavation, a means of access and escape in case of flooding or

collapse shall be provided. It shall have at least one ladder every 16.6m of length or

fraction of a length, which shall extend at least 0.83m above the top of the excavation to

provide handhold when stepping on or off the ladder.

1413.06: Inspection and Examination of Excavation:

Every part of an excavation over 2 m. deep where workers work shall be inspected by the

person in charge at least once a day.

1413.07: Supervision and Execution of Timbering and other Work:

Timbering or support for any excavation shall be erected, added, altered or dismantled

only under the direction of the project supervisor. It shall be of good construction, sound

materials, and of adequate strength for the purpose for which it is used and properly

maintained; all struts and bracings shall be properly secured to prevent displacement.

And lastly timber giving off toxic saps or substance soluble in water shall not be used for

timbering.

1413.08: Harmful Dust, Gases, Fumes:

When harmful dusts, gases and fumes are present in an excavation to such a degree

hazardous to the safety and health of the workers, all measures shall be taken either by

exhaust ventilation or by other means to free the area of such contaminants. Internal

combustion engine shall only be operated in an excavation when provision is made to

ensure that the exhaust gases and fumes are rendered harmless or discharged to a point

away from the excavation.

1413.09: Sizes and Spacing of Members:

111
Sheeting shall not be less than 5 cm. x 15 cm. (2" x 6") in section, wales not less than 10

cm. x 15 cm. (4"x 6") in section and struts not less than 10 cm. x 15 cm. (4" x 6") in

section; the length, section and spacing of timbering members shall be designed

considering the nature of soil, depth and the surroundings.

1414: SCAFFOLDINGS:

Scaffold shall be of good materials and for the purpose for which is intended. Timber

scaffold shall be strip off the bark, and no visible defects. Re-use of scaffold only under

good condition. Timber scaffold shall be limited to a height of 20m from the ground or

base provided that, over a height of 10m, the scaffolding shall be constructed by

appropriate authority. At heights over 20m, structural metals should be used designed by

a structural engineer; Structural steel when used as load bearing members of scaffolding

shall be distressed at welded or bent joints and design construction approved by the

proper authority.

1414.01: Maintenance of Scaffolds:

All scaffolds shall be properly maintained and every part shall be kept, fixed and secured

in position to prevent displacement.. No partly dismantled scaffold shall be used unless it

is rendered stable, strong and safe for the purpose. Scaffoldings left standing for four

months shall not be used until damaged members are replaced and the whole structure

returned to its original strength.

1414.02: Supervision and inspection of Scaffolds:

Scaffold shall be erected, added, altered or dismantled only under the supervision of the

person in charge of the construction. All materials used in any scaffold shall be inspected

112
before use. Lumber with two nail holes aligned crosswise or four (4) nail holes along its

length shall be used as horizontal load bearing member of scaffolds.

1414.03: Strength and Stability of Scaffolds:

Every scaffold shall be capable of supporting twice the maximum load to which it may be

subjected without exceeding the allowable unit stresses of the materials used; have all

standards diagonally and horizontally braced to prevent lateral movement and have no

splices between the points of support of horizontal members and secured to prevent

lateral movement.

1414.04: Construction of Timber Scaffolds:

In single scaffold, the standard shall be placed at 1.18 to 2.43 meters apart at a distance of

1 m. from the wall, connected horizontally by ledgers spaced vertically at 1.51 m. to 1.81

m. on centers. Putlogs shall be placed in the holes left in the walls. The size of the

standard shall not be less than 8.9 cm. in diameter or its equivalent and when it is

necessary to extend a standard, the overlaps shall not be less than 60 cm, In double

scaffold, the outer row shall be at a distance of 1.22 to 1.32 m. from the wall. The putlogs

shall rest entirely on the ledgers. In addition to the diagonal braces, inclined supports

shall be provided to prevent the scaffold from leaning away from the wall. The supports

shall be strutted at intermediate heights against the standards. The size of the standards

for double scaffold shall not be less than 10 cm. in diameter or its equivalent and when it

is necessary to extend a standard the overlap shall not be less than 15 cm. Ledgers,

standards and putlogs shall be securely fastened by bolts, dogs, or ropes. The distance

between two consecutive putlogs shall be designed with due regard to anticipated load

and the nature of the platform flooring. As a minimum rule, the spacing shall be as

113
follows for 3.2 cm. thick planks; spacing shall not exceed 1m for 3.8 cm thick planks

spacing shall not exceed 1.5 m. The displacement of the foot of the standard shall be

prevented either by sinking it into the ground or by fixing it on a base plate.

1414.06: Platform, Runways, Ramps and Stairs:

All platform, runways and ramps from which workers are liable to fall a distance of more

than 2m shall be for platform with minimum width of 70cm, the runaways and ramps

shall be 45cm and if runways are used for the passage of materials, the width shall not be

less than 70 cm., Provided with strong guard rails up to a height of 91 cm. . The

uniformly distributed minimum design load of platform, runway, ramp or stair shall be

650 kg./sqm the stress due to concentrated loads at any point in the floor shall not exceed

those caused by the uniformly distributed load used in the design.

Planking used shall not be less than 3 cm. (2 in.) thick. A scaffold platform shall

not project beyond its end support to a distance exceeding four times the thickness of the

plank, unless secured to prevent tipping. All planks, platforms, runways and ramps shall

be fixed and supported to prevent sagging and moving with slope not exceeding 2 in 3.

When the slope of runway or ramp requires additional foothold using stepping laths, they

shall have a minimum section 5 x 8 cm. placed at maximum intervals of 46 cm. on

centers, extend to the full width of the runway or ramp except that they may be

interrupted over a width of not more than 10 cm. to facilitate the passage of barrows.

1415: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT:

1415.01: Lifting Appliances:

Every lifting appliance shall be of good mechanical construction, of sound materials and

adequate strength for the load it will carry; be properly maintained and inspected at least

114
once a week and the result of such inspection shall be recorded in a log book maintained

by the employer or user of the equipment, open to enforcing authority. Any anchoring or

fixing arrangement provided in connection with a lifting appliance shall be adequate and

secure to hold the imposed load.

1415.02: Brake Controls and Safety Devices:

Every crane, crab and winch shall be provided with a brake to prevent the fall of the load

and to control operation when the load is lowered. Every handle or lever of a lifting

appliance provided for controlling its operation shall be provided with suitable locking

arrangement to prevent its accidental movement. Every lever or handle provided for

controlling the operation of a lifting appliance shall have upon it clear marking to indicate

purpose and mode of operation.

1415.03: Protection of Crane Driver:

Platform for crane drivers and signallers shall be of sufficient area, closely planked,

plated and provided with safe means of access and egress. Every side of a platform more

than 2.16 meters high shall be provided with guard rails and toe boards. The driver of

every power driven lifting appliance shall be provided with a cabin which shall afford

protection from the weather and falling objects, and be constructed to afford ready access

to operating parts of the lifting appliance within the cabin and shall be periodically

inspected and maintained.

1415.04: Anchorage and Load Test of Cranes:

No crane shall be used for raising or lowering loads unless it is securely anchored,

adequately balanced by a weight properly placed and secured. Every crane after erection

altered or any kind of change shall be tested by the contractor/supervisor with the

115
imposition either of a load of twenty-five per cent (25%) above the maximum load to be

lifted by the crane as erected at the position when the maximum pull is applied on each

anchorage, or of lesser load arranged to provide an equivalent test of the anchorages or

balancing arrangements. A report of the test shall be recorded in a log book to be

maintained by the employer. The maximum load allowed shall be affixed in a place

where it can be readily be seen by the crane operator. No crane shall be used or erected

under conditions likely to endanger stability.

1415.05: Drums and Pulleys:

Every chain or rope that terminates at the winding drum of a lifting appliance shall be

properly secured there to and at least two turns or such chain or rope shall remain on the

drum in every operating maximum end position of the appliance.

1415.06: Cranes and Derricking Jibs:

There shall be an effective inter-locking arrangement between the derricking drum in

such a way that the clutch cannot be operated unless the pawl is ineffective engagement

with the derricking jib and the pawl cannot be disengaged unless the clutch is in effective

engagement with the derricking drum. This requirement shall not apply when the

derricking drum is independently driven and the mechanism driving the derricking drum

is self-locking. The hosting mechanism of a crane shall not be used to pull the load

sideways unless it is as certain that no undue stress is imposed on the crane structures and

its stability is not endangered.

1415.07: Crane Operation and Signalling:

A lifting appliance shall not be operated other than by a person trained, competent,

physically fit, and authorized to operate the appliance. In every signal given for the

116
movement or stopping of a lifting appliance shall be distinctive in character and the

person to whom it is given is able to hear or see it easily.

1415.08: Safe Working Loads:

Safe working loads shall be plainly marked on every lifting appliance and in case of a

crane with variable operating radius, safe load at various radii of the jib shall be marked

on the jib displayed in the driver’s cabin or fitted with an automatic safe load indicator. In

every derricking jib, the maximum radius at which the jib may be worked shall be plainly

marked on it. No lifting appliance shall be loaded beyond its safe working load.

1415.09: Guy Derrick Cranes:

The jib of guy derrick cranes shall not be erected between the back stays of the crane.

Measures shall be taken to prevent the foot of the king post of any derrick crane from

being lifted out of its socket.

1415.10: Testing and Examination of Lifting Appliances:

No lifting appliance shall be used unless it has been tested and examined thoroughly

initially and every year thereafter by a competent person by way of his training and

experience in such work. No lifting appliance which has undergone substantial alteration

or repair affecting its strength or stability shall be used unless it is tested and thoroughly

examined by a competent person.

1415.11: Hoist:

Every hoistway shall be efficiently protected by enclosures and when access to the hoist

is necessary, it shall be fitted with gates. Such enclosures and gates shall extend to 2.16

m. except when lesser height is sufficient to prevent the fall of persons and where there is

117
no risk of any worker coming in contact with any moving part of the hoist, but shall in no

case be less than 2.16 m.

1415.12: Marking of Safe Working Loads on Hoist:

The safe working load or the number of persons that can be carried in a hoist shall

be plainly marked on every platform or cage of the hoist.

1415.13: Operation of Hoist:

Hoist for the carriage of goods and materials shall be of such construction that it is

operated outside of the cage unless the doors of the cage and the enclosure are of the

interlocked type. Hoist for the carriage of persons shall have the doors of the cage and

enclosure of hoistway of interlocked type and the cage completely covered and fitted

with overrun devices.

1415.14: Carriage of Persons by Means of Lifting Appliances:

No person shall be raised, lowered or carried by a power driven lifting appliance except

on the driver’s platform in case of a crane or a hoist, or on an approved suspended

scaffold, or when the use of hoist or suspended scaffold is not reasonable, provided that

the appliance can be operated from one position only, the winch used is so constructed

that when control lever or switch is not held in operating position, brake is applied and

disengages from pawl and ratchet gears; and no person is carried except in a chair or

cage, or a safe skip or other receptacle at least 1 m. (3 ft.) deep, and measures are taken to

prevent the chair, cage, skip or receptacle from spinning or tipping in a manner dangerous

to any occupant.

1415.15: Test and Examination of Hoists:

118
After erection or alteration, every hoist shall be tested and examined every six months by

a competent person and the result of such tests and examination shall be recorded in a

logbook maintained for the purpose. The logbook shall be made available for inspection

by the enforcing authority.

1415.16: Chains, Ropes and Lifting Gears:

No chain, rope or lifting gear shall be used unless it is of good construction, sound

material, of adequate strength, suitable quality and free from potent defects. No wire rope

shall be used for lifting and lowering of any load if in any 10 meters length the total

number of visible broken wires exceed to five percent of the total number of wires in the

rope. No chain, ring hook, link, clamp, shackle, swivel or eyebolt altered or repaired by

welding shall be used unless it is tested and examined and its working load specified in

the test. No double or multiple slings shall be used if the upper ends are not connected by

means of shackle, ring or link of adequate strength or the safe working load is exceeded. .

No chain, rope or lifting gear shall be used unless it is thoroughly examined by a

competent person at intervals of six months and the result of examination recorded in a

log book maintained for the purpose open for inspection by the enforcing authority.

1416: Plant and Equipment:

Operators exposed to hazards shall be provided with overhead hazards, a cab, screen or

other overhead protection. Blocking shall be installed when repair and dismantling of

equipment occur to prevent collapse or movement. When workers are endangered by

rotation or uncontrolled motions, one or more guide ropes or tag lines shall be used to

prevent rotation on uncontrolled rotation. Friction clamp shall be installed when slacking

or clamps occur. When vision is block by machine or equipment, signals shall be used.

119
Lifting jacks shall be provided have its rated capacity legibly cast or stamped in plain

view on the jack, and be equipped with a positive stop to prevent over travel or where a

positive stop is impracticable, it shall be provided with a device indicating maximum

allowable travel. Unattended vehicles near sloping ground shall have its brakes applied

and wheels block. Hose supplying steam or air to a hammer or a pole driver or to a drill

carriage shall have attached thereto a wire, rope or chain to prevent the hose from

whipping. Piles or sheet piling shall be adequately supported at all times.

1417: DEMOLITION:

1417.01:

All demolition operations of buildings or structures over 6m high shall be under

supervision of a competent person. No person except the workers who are engage in the

demolition shall enter the demolition area to within a distance equal to 1 1/2 times the

height of the structure being demolished, where this distance is not possible the structure

shall be fenced around and no unauthorized person shall be allowed within the fenced

area.

1417.02: Demolition Work:

On demolition work, danger signs shall be posted around the structure and on all

open access to the structure shall be guarded or barricaded. Demolition shall not start

until all steps have been taken to prevent any injury and accidents. Prior to demolition,

glasses shall be removed from the structure otherwise shall be protected against breakage.

Shoring or other necessary measures shall be taken to prevent the accidental collapse of

any part of the building or structure being demolished or any adjacent building or

structure endangering the workers. Demolition shall proceed systematically, storey by

120
storey, in a descending order and the work on the upper floors shall be completely over

before removing any of the supporting members of the structure on the lower floor. This

shall not prohibit the demolition on section, in the same descending order if means are

taken to prevent injury to workers and damage to property. Demolition shall proceed

systematically, storey by storey, in a descending order. All precautions shall be taken to

avoid damage from collapse of a budding being demolished or any part of it when any

part of the framing is removed from a framed or partly framed building.

1418: MECHANICAL DEMOLITION:

The demolition area where work is done by mechanical devices such as weight balls or

power shovels shall be barricaded for a minimum distance of 1 1/2 times the height of the

structure, no allow entrance of unauthorized persons, arranged and maintained so the

mechanical devices used shall not cause any damage to adjacent structures, power lines

or public road.

1419: EXPLOSIVES:

1419.01: Supervision:

Only the quantity of dynamite required for immediate use in blasting of a part of a

building or other structure shall be removed from the magazine. No holes shall be drilled

within 3.3 m. of a hole containing explosives or blasting agents; within 6.6 m. of a hole

being loaded with explosives or blasting agents. Every firing circuit in connection with

blasting operations shall be broken in a suitable manner at a safe distance from the

blasting area. When a charge is fired, steps shall be taken to see that persons employed

are in a position free from the explosives or from flying objects. The applicable

121
provisions of Rule 1140 shall also apply to the use, handling, and storage of explosives in

construction industry.

122
Appendix B
Dangerous Occurrences (Based on Follow – Up Questionnaire Section B)

The occurrences are prescribed by The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous

Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR) in 13 categories as follows:

1. Lifting Machinery. The failure of any load bearing part of, the collapse of, or the

overturning of any of the following:

a. Lift or hoist

b. Crane or derrick

c. Mobile powered access platform

d. Access cradle or window-cleaning cradle

e. Excavator

f. Pile-driving frame or rig having an overall height, when operating, of more than

7m

g. Forklift truck

2. Pressure Systems. The failure of any closed vessel (including a boiler or boiler tube) or

any associated pipework, in which the internal pressure was above or below atmospheric

pressure, where the failure has the potential to cause the death of any person.

3. Electrical Short Circuit. Electrical short circuit or overload attended by fire or

explosion which results in the stoppage of the plant involved for more than 24 hours or

which has the potential to cause the death of any person.

123
4. Overhead Electric Lines. Any unintentional incident in which plant or equipment

either:

a. Comes into contact with an uninsulated overhead electric line in which the

voltage exceeds 200 volts; or

b. Causes an electrical discharge from such an electric line by coming into close

proximity to it.

5. Explosives. Any of the following incidents involving explosives

a. The unintentional explosion or ignition of explosives other than one:

i. Caused by the unintentional discharge of a weapon where, apart from that

unintentional discharge, the weapon and explosives functioned as they were designed to

do; or

ii. Where a fail-safe device or safe system of work functioned so as to prevent any

person from being injured in consequence of the explosion or ignition

b. A misfire (other than one at a mine or quarry or inside a well or one involving a

weapon) except where a fail-safe device or safe system of work functioned so as to

prevent any person from being endangered in consequence of the misfire

c. The failure of the shots in any demolition operation to cause the intended extent

of collapse or direction of fall of a building or structure

124
d. The projection of material (other than at a quarry) beyond the boundary of the

site on which the explosives are being used or beyond the danger zone in circumstances

such that any person was or might have been injured thereby

e. Any injury to a person (other than at a mine or quarry or one otherwise

reportable other than at mine reportable under these regulations) involving first-aid or

medical treatment resulting from the explosion or discharge of any explosives or

detonator.

6. Biological Agents. This includes any accident or incident which resulted or could have

resulted in the release or escape of a biological agent likely to cause severe human

infection or illness.

7. Breathing apparatus.

a. Any incident in which breathing apparatus malfunctions:

i. While in use; or

ii. During testing immediately prior to use in such a way that had the malfunction

occurred while the apparatus was in use it would have posed a danger to the health or

safety of the user.

b. This paragraph shall not apply to breathing apparatus while it is being:

i. Used in a mine; or

ii. Maintained or tested as part of a routine maintenance procedure

8. Collapse of Scaffolding. The complete or partial collapse of:

125
a. Any scaffold which is:

i. More than 5 m in height which results in a substantial part of the scaffold falling

or overturning; or

ii. Erected over or adjacent to water in circumstances such that there would be a

risk of drowning to a person falling from the scaffold into the water; or

b. The suspension arrangements (including any outrigger) of any slung or

suspended scaffold which causes a working platform or cradle to fall

9. Pipelines or Pipeline Works. The following incidents in respect of a pipeline or

pipeline works:

a. The uncontrolled or accidental escape of anything from, or inrush of anything

into, a pipeline which has the potential to cause the death of, major injury or damage to

the health of any person or which results in the pipeline being shut down for more than

24 hours

b. The unintentional ignition of anything in a pipeline or of anything which,

immediately before it was ignited, was in a pipeline

c. Any damage to any part of pipeline which has the potential to cause the death

of, major injury or damage to the health of any person or which results in the pipeline

being shut down for more than 24 hours

d. Any substantial and unintentional change in the position of a pipeline requiring

immediate attention to safeguard the integrity or safety of a pipeline

126
e. Any unintentional change in the subsoil or seabed in the vicinity of pipeline

which has the potential to affect the integrity or safety of pipeline

f. Any failure of any pipeline isolation device, equipment or system which has the

potential to cause the death of, major injury or damage to the health of any person or

which results in the pipeline being shut down for more than 24 hours; or

g. Any failure of equipment involved with pipeline works which has the potential

to cause the death of, major injury or damage to the health of any person

10. Collapse of Building or Structure. Any unintended collapse or partial collapse of:

a. Any building or structure (whether above or below ground under construction,

reconstruction, alteration or demolition which involves a fall of more than 5 tons of

material

b. Any floor or wall of any building (whether above or below ground) used as a

place of work; or

c. Any false-work

11. Explosion or Fire. An explosion or fire occurring in any plant or premises which

results in the stoppage of the plant or, as the case may be, the suspension of normal work

in those premises for more than 24 hours, where the explosion or fire was due to the

ignition of any material.

12. Escape of Flammable Substances. The sudden, uncontrolled release:

a. inside of a building:

127
i. Of 100 kg or more of a flammable liquid

ii. Of 10 kg or more of flammable liquid at a temperature above its normal boiling

point

iii. Of 10 kg or more of flammable gas

b. in the open air, of 500 kg or more of any of the substances referred to in sub-

paragraph (a) above

13. Escape of Substances. The accidental release or escape of any substance in a quantity

sufficient to cause the death, major injury or any other damage to the health of any person

128
Appendix C

Request Letter to Construction Companies

129
Appendix D

Questionnaire Survey

Preliminary Questionnaire

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

FOR SME CONSTRUCTION FIRM SURVEY / QUESTIONNAIRE FORM

RESPONDENT NO. _____

PART I. PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENTS

SECTION A. PROFILE

NAME OF RESPONDENT: _______________________________________________

COMPANY: ____________________________________________________________

Please encircle:

Laguna District: A. 1st District (Santa Rosa, Biñan and San Pedro)

B. 2nd District (Cabuyao, Calamba, Los Baños and Bay)

C. 3rd District (Alaminos, Calauan, San Pablo and Nagcarlan)

D. 4th District (Cavinti, Sta. Cruz, Luisiana and Magdalena)

PCAB Category: AAA AA A B C D

Number of Employees (classification of MSME)

A. Micro (1-9) B. Small (10-99) C. Medium (100-199)

Years in Operation:

A. 1–5 years B. 6–10 years C. 100–99 years D. 16 - 20 years E. above 20 years

Type of Services:

A. General Building C. Both

B. General Engineering D. Specialty(Electrical, Mechanical, etc)

PART II. LEVEL OF AWARENESS CONSTRUCTION FIRM

SECTION B. KNOWLEDGE

130
1.) Are you aware of ISO 45001:2014 standards as mentioned above? (Please encircle your answer)
a. Yes
b. No – Proceed to SECTION C – Question 2.0
IF YES IN QUESTION 1
1a) Sources of awareness of ISO 45001:2014 standards? (Please encircle your answer/answers)
A. Seminar / Training
B. Exposure like heard / seen from other industries or friends
C. Actual Learning from company
D. School Learning
1b) How would you rate your level of awareness and familiarity with ISO 45001:2014 standards? Would
you say you are: (Please encircle your answer)

3- Very Familiar

2- Somewhat Familiar

1 - Aware but not Familiar

SECTION C. PRACTICES

2.) Check the occupational safety and health management system/tools/practices you are using in you
construction firm?
Health and Safety Policy

Health and Safety Training


Health and Safety Management
a. Management Leadership and Employee Involvement
b. Worksite Analysis, Hazard Prevention and Hazard Control
i. Adequate Aisles/Passageways
ii. Good Housekeeping
iii. Personal Protective Equipment
iv. Fire Protection Equipment/Facilities
v. Construction Safety Signages
vi. Material Handling and Storage
vii. Waste Disposal System
Health and Safety Monitoring, Audit and Review
a. Internal Health and Safety Department
b. External Health and Safety Department
c. Health and Safety Committee
d. Medical Facility
e. Emergency Medicines
f. Formal Site Health and Safety Inspection

131
3.) In your construction firm, are you implementing ISO 45001:2014 standards? (Please encircle your
answer)

A.Yes

B.No

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND INPUTS

132
2. Follow-up Questionnaire

Name of Respondent: _____________________

Company:_______________________________

Position in the Company:__________________

SECTION A. ACCIDENT HISTORY

1. Please provide the number of accidents (A), number of deaths (D) and the cause of
accident occurrences between year 2010 – 2015. Note (D) is inclusive in (A).

Year
Cause of Accident 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
A D A D A D A D A D A D
1. Failure to use PPE
a. Contact
with
machinery
b. Contact
with
biological
agents
c. Contact
with
hazardous
substances
2. Trench Collapse and Excavation Hazard
a. Trapped by
something
collapsing
/overturning
3. Scaffold or Ladder Collapse
a. Fall from a
height
4. Electric Shock and Arch Flash
a. Contact
with
electricity
b. Contact
with
explosive
materials
5. Struck-by
a. Struck by a
moving
object
b. Strike
against
something
stationary
c. Struck by

133
moving
vehicle
6. Repetitive Motion Injuries
a. Injured
while
handling,
lifting or
carrying.
7. *Other Accident
________________

SECTION B. SAFETY CHECKLIST

Kindly rate the following Safety Checklist. (Please check your answer)

2- 4 – Very 5–
Safety Checklist: 1 - Never 3 – Often
Sometimes Often Required
1. Use of PPE
a. Does your company enforce
the use of safety glasses or
face shields?
b. Does your company enforce
wearing of hard hat in open
sites?
c. Does your company enforce
wearing of proper gloves in
doing manual work?
d. Does your company enforce
the use of safety shoes or
boots in work sites?
2. Scaffolding
a. Is there an SOP in checking
where the scaffold is set foot?
b. Are damaged scaffolds
considered rejects and not
used for the same purpose?
c. Do scaffolds not erected
within 10 feet of power lines?
d. Does your company let your
workers to work on scaffolds
in bad weather or high winds?
e. Does your scaffold design
adequate to support heavier
weights other than workers’
weight?
3. Electric Safety
a. Does your company let your
workers to work on new and
existing energized electrical
circuits, without shutting off
the system?
b. Is there a lockout/tagout
system in place for electrical

134
power network?
c. Does your worker promptly
replace the frayed, damaged or
worn electrical cords or
cables?
d. Are all extension cords have
grounding prongs?
e. Does your worker protect
flexible cords and cables from
damage by avoiding sharp
corners and edges?
f. Does your worker use
extension cord sets used with
portable electric tools and
appliances that are three-wire
type?
g. Does your worker maintained
all electrical tools and
equipment in safe condition
and checked regularly for
defects and taken out of
service if defect is found?
h. Are your worker warned and
protected from overhead
electrical power lines?
i. Does your worker ensure all
electrical tools are properly
grounded?
j. Does your worker prohibit the
multiple plug adapters?
4. Floor and Wall Opening
a. Does your worker guard the
floor openings by secured
cover, a guardrail or
equivalent on all sides?
b. Does your worker install toe
boards around the edges of
permanent floor openings?
5. Elevated Opening
a. Does your worker post signs
on elevated surface showing
load capacity?
b. Does your worker make
guardrails that are elevated
more than 4 feet above the
floor or ground?
c. Does your worker have a
standard 4-inch toe boards in
all elevated surfaces?
6. Hazard Communication
a. Does your company maintain
readily available list of
hazardous substances used in
the workplace?
b. Does your company label each

135
container of a hazardous
substance with product
identity and hazard
warning(s)?
c. Does your company have
Material Safety Data Sheets
(MSDS) available at all times
for each hazardous?
d. Does your company provide
an effective employee training
program for hazardous
substances?
7. Crane Safety
a. Do cranes and derricks
restricted from operating
within 10 feet from any
electrical power line?
b. Does your worker ensure that
the upper rotating structure
supporting the boom and
materials being handled is
provided with an electrical
ground while working near
energized transmitter towers?
c. Are the rated load capacities,
operating speed and
instructions posted visible to
the crane operator?
d. Does your crane operator
understand the use of load
chart?
e. Does your crane operator
inspect the crane machinery
and other rigging daily prior to
use to make sure that it is in
good condition?
f. Does your worker put
barricades and tag lines in
accessible areas within the
crane’s swing radius?
g. Do you post the illustration of
hand signals to crane and
derrick operators on the job?
h. Do you perform and maintain
the reports of initial and
annual inspection of all
hoisting and rigging?
i. Do you only allow crane
operators that are trained and
qualified with hoisting and
rigging equipment?
8. Forklifts
a. Do you hire competent forklift
truck operator to operate
forklift vehicle safely?

136
b. Does your company hire
forklift truck operator to
operate a forklift under 18
years old?
c. Does your worker inspect
forklifts daily for proper
condition of brakes, horns,
steering, forks and tires?

ITEM DESCRIPTION

a. Personal Protective Equipment – is anything used or worn by a person to


minimize risk to the person’s health or safety and includes a wide range of
clothing and safety equipment. (example: boots, face mask, hard hats, ear plugs,
respirators, gloves, safety harnesses, high visibility clothing etc.)
b. Scaffolding – also called scaffold or staging, is a temporary structure used to
support a work crew and materials to aid in the construction, maintenance and
repair of buildings, bridges and all other man made structures.
c. Electrical Cord – an electrical wire that is wrapped in a protective covering and
used to connect a device to a power source.
d. Electrical Cable – is an assembly of one or more electrical conductors usually
held together with an overall sheath and it is used for transmission of electrical
power.
e. Extension cord – also known as power extender, drop cord or extension lead is a
length of flexible electrical power cable (flex) with a plug on one end and one or
more sockets on the other end.
f. Toe board – is a long piece of 2-inch by 4-inch wood nailed horizontally along a
roof in various places.
g. Guardrails – it is also referred to as guide rail or railing, is system designed to
keep people or vehicles from straying into dangerous or off-limits areas.
h. Hazardous substance – is any substance that is explode, flammable, ability to
oxidize (accelerate fire) and human toxicity (acute or chronic).
i. Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) – is a document that gives detailed
information about the nature of chemical, such as physical and chemical
properties, health, safety, fire, and environmental hazards of chemical product.
j. Crane – is a type of machine, generally equipped with a hoist rope, wire ropes or
chains and sheave that can be used both to lift and lower materials and to move
them horizontally. It is mainly used for lifting heavy things and transporting them
to other places.
k. Derrick – is a lifting device composed at minimum of one guyed mast, as in a gin
pole, which may be articulated over a load by adjusting its guys
l. Forklift – is also called a lift truck, a powered industrial truck used to lift and
move materials short distances.

137
 Please note that the name of the company and respondent will not be
disclosed in any form of data presentation to maintain privacy of information

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND INPUTS


Name of Person:

Position:

Date of interview:

Contact no :

138
Appendix E

Data Collected

Preliminary Questionnaire

A. Profiling

Company Laguna PCAB No. Of Years of Type of


No. District Category Employees Operation Services
A1 II B Small 6 – 10 yrs GE
A2 II C Small 16 – 20 yrs GB
A3 II A Small > 20 years GB
A4 II B Medium 16 – 20 yrs Specialty
A5 II D Micro 16 – 20 yrs Specialty
B1 I A Medium 16 – 20 yrs Specialty
B2 III A Medium 16 – 20 yrs GB & GE
B3 I D Small 11 – 15 yrs GB & GE
B4 II D Small 6 – 10 yrs GB
B5 II C Small 6 – 10 yrs GB
C1 III C Small 6 – 10 yrs GB & GE
C2 II D Medium > 20 years GB & GE

B. Level Awareness of Construction Firm

Awareness
Company Sources of Level of
on ISO
No. Awareness Awareness
45001
A1 Yes C 2
A2 Yes B 2
A3 Yes A 1
A4 Yes A 3
A5 Yes B 1
B1 Yes A,B 2
B2 Yes B 3
B3 Yes B 3
B4 No - -
B5 No - -
C1 Yes C 3
C2 Yes A,B,C 5

139
Legend: 1A – Sources of Awareness:
A. Seminar/Training
B. Exposure like Heard/Seen from other industries or friends
C. Actual Learning from Company
D. School Learning
1B – Level of Awareness
C. Practices

Health and Safety Management

Health and B. Work Site Analysis, Hazard


COMPANY Health and
Safety Prevention and Hazard
NO. Safety Policy A. Management Leadership and
Training Control
Employee Involvement
i Ii iii iv v vi vii

A1 T T T F T T T T T F

A2 T T T T T T T T T F

A3 T F F F T T T T T T

A4 F F F F F T F T F F

A5 F F T T T T F T T F

B1 T T T T T T T T T T

B2 T F F T T T T F F T

B3 T F T T F T F T F T

B4 F F F F F T F T F F

B5 T T T T T T T T F F

C1 T T T T T T T T T T

C2 T T T T T T T T T T

Health and Safety Monitoring, Audit and Review


COMPANY
NO.

a b c d e F

A1 T F T F T F

A2 F T T T T T

140
A3 F F F T T F

A4 F F F F T T

A5 F F F F T F

B1 T T T T T T

B2 F F F F T T

B3 T F T F T T

B4 F F T F T T

B5 F T T F T T

C1 T F T F T T

C2 F F T F T F

Legend:

T – Checked

F – Not Checked

Company Implementing
No. of ISO 45001
A1 A
A2 B
A3 A
A4 B
A5 B
B1 A
B2 A
B3 A
B4 B
B5 B
C1 A
C2 A

Follow-Up Questionnaire

141
A. Accident Occurrences of Construction Firms between year 2010 – 2015.

COMPANY 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TOTAL

A1 0 0 0 0 1 2 3

A2 60 60 49 49 55 34 307

A3 2 2 2 2 2 2 12

A4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

A5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

B2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

B3 0 0 0 0 3 2 5

B4 12 7 5 6 2 3 35

B5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C1 0 0 0 4 3 0 7

C2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B. Causes of Accident

2. TRENCH
3. SCAFFOLD
COLLAPSE AND
1. FAILURE TO USE PPE OR LADDER
EXCAVATION
COLLAPSE
COMPANY HAZARD
C. Contact with
A. Contact with B. Contact with Trapped by Something Fall from a
Hazardous
Machinery Biological Agents Collapsing/Overturning Height
Substances

A1 1 0 0 0 0

A2 30 0 59 11 14

A3 0 0 0 0 0

A4 0 0 0 0 0

A5 0 0 0 0 0

B1 0 0 0 0 1

B2 0 0 0 1 0

B3 0 0 0 0 1

B4 8 8 0 0 4

142
B5 0 0 0 0 0

C1 2 0 0 4 0

C2 0 0 0 0 0

4. ELECTRIC SHOCK AND ARC


5. STRUCK-BY
FLASH
COMPANY
B. Strike against
A. Contact with B. Contact with A. Struct by a C. Struct by
Something
Electricity Explosive Moving Object Moving Vehicle
Stationary

A1 0 0 0 2 0

A2 49 0 64 0 12

A3 0 0 0 0 0

A4 0 0 0 0 0

A5 0 0 0 0 0

B1 0 0 0 0 0

B2 0 0 0 0 0

B3 1 0 0 2 0

B4 2 1 5 2 2

B5 0 0 0 0 0

C1 0 0 0 0 0

C2 0 0 0 0 0

6. REPETITIVE
MOTION
INJURIES
COMPANY 7. OTHERS TOTAL
A. Injured while
Handling, Lifting or
Carrying

A1 0 0 3

A2 68 0 307

A3 12 0 12

A4 0 0 0

A5 0 0 0

B1 0 0 1

143
B2 0 0 1

B3 1 0 5

B4 2 1 35

B5 0 0 0

C1 1 0 7

C2 0 0 0

C. Grade on Safety Standard of Construction Companies

1. Use of PPE 2. Scaffolding


COMPANY
a b c D a b c d e

A1 5 5 4 5 3 4 3 2 5

A2 4 3 4 5 4 4 4 1 5

A3 5 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 4

A4 5 5 5 3 5 5 1 1 5

A5 2 5 4 5 5 5 4 1 5

B1 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 1 5

B2 4 2 4 3 4 3 5 1 5

B3 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 1 3

B4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 5

B5 3 5 4 4 5 1 5 1 4

C1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2

C2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 5

4. Floor and
3. Electric Safety
Wall Opening
COMPANY
a b c d e f g h i j a b

A1 1 5 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

A2 1 4 5 4 4 3 4 5 4 4 5 5

A3 1 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

144
A4 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

A5 1 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5

B1 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

B2 1 1 3 2 4 1 3 5 3 3 3 3

B3 1 3 4 3 3 4 3 5 3 4 5 3

B4 1 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 4

B5 5 1 5 5 5 3 4 5 5 1 5 5

C1 1 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

C2 1 5 3 3 5 2 3 4 3 4 5 5

5. Elevated Opening 6. Hazard Communication


COMPANY
a b C a b c d

A1 4 4 5 4 5 3 3

A2 4 3 4 3 3 2 2

A3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2

A4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

A5 4 4 2 5 5 5 5

B1 5 5 3 5 5 5 5

B2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

B3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3

B4 4 4 4 1 2 3 1

B5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1

C1 5 5 5 4 5 4 3

C2 5 5 5 2 2 2 2

7. Crane Safety 8. Forklifts


COMPANY
a b c d e f g h i a b c

A1 4 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 5 1 4

A2 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 1 5

A3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

A4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

145
A5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

B1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

B2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

B3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

B4 3 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 4

B5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

C1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

C2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

LEGEND:

5 – Required 4- Very Often

3 – Often 2 – Sometimes

1 - Never

146
Appendix F

Chi-square Test

Test for Homogeneity of Awareness on ISO 45001:2014 of Construction Firms

among the Profile Factors

A. District

Aware Of
ISO I Ie II (II)e III (III)e IV (IV)e TOTAL
45001:2014
Yes 2 1.67 6 6.67 2 1.67 0 0 10
No 0 0.33 2 1.33 0 0.33 0 0 2
Total
2 8 2 0 12
Column

O E O-E (O - E)2 (O-E)2/E

2 1.67 0.33 0.1089 0.0652096


0 0.33 -0.33 0.1089 0.33
6 6.67 -0.67 0.4489 0.0673013
2 1.33 0.67 0.4489 0.3375188
2 1.67 0.33 0.1089 0.0652096
0 0.33 -0.33 0.1089 0.33
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
X2 1.1952393
df 3
α 0.05
Table X2 7.815
ACCEPT
Test HO1
H01

Level of
District Expected O-E (O - E)2 (O - E)2/E
Awareness
I 2.5 1.833 0.667 0.444889 0.242710857
II 1.833 1.833 0 0 0

147
III 3 1.833 1.167 1.361889 0.742983633
IV 0 1.833 -1.833 3.359889 1.833
X2 2.81869449
df 3
α 0.05
Table X2 7.815
ACCEPT
Test HO1
H01

B. PCAB Category

Aware Of Total
ISO A Ae B Be C Ce D De
45001:2014 Row
Yes 3 2.5 2 1.67 2 2.5 3 3.33 10
No 0 0.5 0 0.33 1 0.5 1 0.67 2
Total
Column 3 2 3 4 12

O E O-E (O - E)2 (O-E)2/E


3 2.5 0.5 0.25 0.1
0 0.5 -0.5 0.25 0.5
2 1.67 0.33 0.1089 0.0652096
0 0.33 -0.33 0.1089 0.33
2 2.5 -0.5 0.25 0.1
1 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5
3 3.33 -0.33 0.1089 0.0327027
1 0.67 0.33 0.1089 0.1625373
X2 1.7904496
df 3
α 0.05
Table X2 7.815
ACCEPT
Test HO1
H01

Level of
Category Expected O-E (O - E)2 (O - E)2/E
Awareness

A 2 2.25 -0.25 0.0625 0.027777778

B 2.5 2.25 0.25 0.0625 0.027777778


C 2.5 2.25 0.25 0.0625 0.027777778
D 2 2.25 -0.25 0.0625 0.027777778
X2 0.111111111
df 3
α 0.05

148
Table X2 7.815
ACCEPT
Test HO1
H01

C. Years of Operation

Aware Of
1-5 6 - 10 (6 - 11 - 15 (11 - 16 - 20 (16 - Total
ISO (1-5)E >20YRS >20YRSE
YRS YRS 10)E YRS 15)E YRS 20)E Row
45001:2014
Yes 0 0 2 3.33 1 0.83 5 4.17 2 1.67 10
No 0 0 2 0.67 0 0.17 0 0.83 0 0.33 2
Total
0 4 1 5 2 12
Column

O E O-E (O - E)2 (O-E)2/E


0 0 0 0 -
0 0 0 0 -
2 3.33 -1.33 1.7689 0.5312012
2 0.67 1.33 1.7689 2.6401493
1 0.83 0.17 0.0289 0.0348193
0 0.17 -0.17 0.0289 0.17
5 4.17 0.83 0.6889 0.1652038
0 0.83 -0.83 0.6889 0.83
2 1.67 0.33 0.1089 0.0652096
0 0.33 -0.33 0.1089 0.33
X2 4.7665831
df 4
α 0.05
Table X2 9.488
ACCEPT
Test HO1
H01

Years of Level of
Expected O-E (O - E)2 (O - E)2/E
Operation Awareness
1 - 5 yrs. 0 2.3 -2.3 5.29 2.3
6 - 10 yrs. 2.5 2.3 0.2 0.04 0.017391304
11 - 15 yrs. 3 2.3 0.7 0.49 0.213043478
16 - 20 yrs. 2.2 2.3 -0.1 0.01 0.004347826
> 20 yrs. 1.5 2.3 -0.8 0.64 0.27826087
X2 2.813043478
df 4
α 0.05
Table X2 9.488
Test HO1 ACCEPT

149
H01

D. Number of Employees

Aware Of
TOTAL
ISO MICRO MICROE SMALL SMALLe MEDIUM MEDIUMe
ROW
45001:2014
Yes 1 0.83 5 5.83 4 3.33 10
No 0 0.17 2 1.17 0 0.67 2
Total
1 7 4 12
Column

O E O-E (O - E)2 (O-E)2/E


1 0.83 0.17 0.0289 0.0348193
0 0.17 -0.17 0.0289 0.17
5 5.83 -0.83 0.6889 0.1181647
2 1.17 0.83 0.6889 0.5888034
4 3.33 0.67 0.4489 0.1348048
0 0.67 -0.67 0.4489 0.67
X2 1.7165922
df 2
α 0.05
Table X2 5.991
ACCEPT
Test HO1
H01

No. of Level of
Expected O-E (O - E)2 (O - E)2/E
Employees Awareness
Micro 1 1.425 -0.425 0.180625 0.126754386
Small 2.2 1.425 0.775 0.600625 0.421491228
Medium 2.5 1.425 1.075 1.155625 0.810964912
X2 1.359210526
df 2
α 0.05
Table X2 5.991
ACCEPT
Test HO1
H01

E. Type of Services

150
Aware Of
TOTAL
ISO GB GBE GE GEE GB&GE GB&GEE SPECIALTY SPECIALTYE
ROW
45001:2014
Yes 2 3.33 1 0.83 4 3.33 3 2.5 10
No 2 0.67 0 0.17 0 0.67 0 0.5 2
Total
4 1 4 3 12
Column

O E O-E (O - E)2 (O-E)2/E


2 3.33 -1.33 1.7689 0.5312012
2 0.67 1.33 1.7689 2.6401493
1 0.83 0.17 0.0289 0.0348193
0 0.17 -0.17 0.0289 0.17
4 3.33 0.67 0.4489 0.1348048
0 0.67 -0.67 0.4489 0.67
3 2.5 0.5 0.25 0.1
0 0.5 -0.5 0.25 0.5
X2 4.7809745
df 3
α 0.05
Table X2 7.815
ACCEPT
Test HO1
H01

Type of Level of
Expected O-E (O - E)2 (O - E)2/E
Services Awareness
GB 1.5 2.063 -0.563 0.316969 0.153644692
GE 2 2.063 -0.063 0.003969 0.001923897
GB & GE 2.75 2.063 0.687 0.471969 0.228777993
Specialty 2 2.063 -0.063 0.003969 0.001923897
X2 0.38627048
df 3
α 0.05
Table X2 7.815
ACCEPT
Test HO1
H01

Test of Homogeneity of Implementing ISO 45001:2014 of Construction Companies

A. District

151
IMPLEMENT
Total
ISO I Ie II (II)e III (III)e IV (IV)e
Row
45001:2014
Yes 2 1.17 3 4.67 2 1.17 0 0 7
No 0 0.83 5 3.33 0 0.83 0 0 5

Total Column 2 8 2 0 12

O E O–E (O - E)2 (O-E)2/E


2 1.17 0.83 0.6889 0.588803
0 0.83 -0.83 0.6889 0.83
3 4.67 -1.67 2.7889 0.597195
5 3.33 1.67 2.7889 0.837508
2 1.17 0.83 0.6889 0.588803
0 0.83 -0.83 0.6889 0.83
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
X2 4.272309
df 3
α 0.05
Table X2 7.815
ACCEPT
Test HO1
H01

B. PCAB Category

IMPLEMENT
Total
ISO A Ae B Be C Ce D De
Row
45001:2014
Yes 3 1.75 1 1.17 1 1.75 2 2.33 7
No 0 1.25 1 0.83 2 1.25 2 1.67 5

Total Column 3 2 3 4 12

O E O–E (O - E)2 (O-E)2/E


3 1.75 1.25 1.5625 0.892857
0 1.25 -1.25 1.5625 1.25
1 1.17 -0.17 0.0289 0.024701
1 0.83 0.17 0.0289 0.034819
1 1.75 -0.75 0.5625 0.321429
2 1.25 0.75 0.5625 0.45
2 2.33 -0.33 0.1089 0.046738
2 1.67 0.33 0.1089 0.06521
X2 3.085754
df 3
α 0.05
Table X2 7.815

152
ACCEPT
Test HO1
H01

C. Years of Operation

IMPLEMENT 11 - 16 -
1-5 (1- 6 - 10 (6 - (11 - (16 - Total
ISO 15 20 >20YRS >20YRSE
YRS 5)E YRS 10)E 15)E 20)E Row
45001:2014 YRS YRS
Yes 0 0 2 2.33 1 0.58 2 2.92 2 1.17 7
No 0 0 2 1.67 0 0.42 3 2.08 0 0.83 5

Total Column 0 4 1 5 2 12

(O - (O-
O E O–E
E)2 E)2/E
0 0 0 0 -
0 0 0 0 -
2 2.33 -0.33 0.1089 0.04674
2 1.67 0.33 0.1089 0.06521
1 0.58 0.42 0.1764 0.30414
0 0.42 -0.42 0.1764 0.42
2 2.92 -0.92 0.8464 0.28986
3 2.08 0.92 0.8464 0.40692
2 1.17 0.83 0.6889 0.5888
0 0.83 -0.83 0.6889 0.83
X2 2.95168
df 4
α 0.05
Table X2 9.488
ACCEPT
Test HO1
H01

D. Number Of Employees

IMPLEMENT
TOTAL
ISO MICRO MICROE SMALL SMALLe MEDIUM MEDIUMe
ROW
45001:2014
Yes 0 0.58 4 4.08 3 2.33 7
No 1 0.42 3 2.92 1 1.67 5

Total Column 1 7 4 12

153
(O - (O-
O E O–E
E)2 E)2/E
0 0.58 -0.58 0.3364 0.58
1 0.42 0.58 0.3364 0.80095
4 4.08 -0.08 0.0064 0.00157
3 2.92 0.08 0.0064 0.00219
3 2.33 0.67 0.4489 0.19266
1 1.67 -0.67 0.4489 0.2688
X2 1.84618
df 2
α 0.05
Table X2 5.991
ACCEPT
Test HO1
H01

E. Type of Services

IMPLEMENT
TOTAL
ISO GB GBE GE GEE GB&GE GB&GEE SPECIALTY SPECIALTYE
ROW
45001:2014
Yes 1 2.33 1 0.58 4 2.33 1 1.75 7
No 3 1.67 0 0.42 0 1.67 2 1.25 5

Total Column 4 1 4 3 12

(O - (O-
O E O–E
E)2 E)2/E
1 2.33 -1.33 1.7689 0.75918
3 1.67 1.33 1.7689 1.05922
1 0.58 0.42 0.1764 0.30414
0 0.42 -0.42 0.1764 0.42
4 2.33 1.67 2.7889 1.19695
0 1.67 -1.67 2.7889 1.67
1 1.75 -0.75 0.5625 0.32143
2 1.25 0.75 0.5625 0.45
X2 6.18093
df 3
α 0.05
Table X2 7.815
ACCEPT
Test HO1
H01

Test of Independence of Severity Level of Construction Companies according to

Profile Factors

154
A.District

NON FATAL ACCIDENT FATAL TOTAL


DISTRICT FARe
Minor MINe Major MAJe ACCIDENT ACCIDENT
I 3 4.341 2 1.528 1 0.13 6
II 41 34.732 7 12.228 0 1.041 48
III 223 227.927 85 80.244 7 6.829 315
IV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 267 94 8 369

O E O-E (O - E)2 (O - E)2/E CSR


-
3 4.341 -1.341 1.798281 0.41425501 FAILED
0.643626453
41 34.732 6.268 39.287824 1.131170794 1.063565134 FAILED
-
223 227.927 -4.927 24.275329 0.106504841 FAILED
0.326350795
0 0 0 0 - - -
2 1.528 0.472 0.222784 0.145801047 0.381839033 FAILED
7 12.228 -5.228 27.331984 2.235196598 -1.49505739 FAILED
85 80.244 4.756 22.619536 0.281884452 0.530927916 FAILED
0 0 0 0 - - -
1 0.13 0.87 0.7569 5.822307692 2.412945854 ALRIGHT
-
0 1.041 -1.041 1.083681 1.041 FAILED
1.020294075
7 6.829 0.171 0.029241 0.004281886 0.065436122 FAILED
0 0 0 0 - - -
X2 11.18240232
df 6
Α 0.05
Table X2 12.592
ACCEPT
H0
H02

B. PCAB Category

NON FATAL ACCIDENT FATAL TOTAL


CATEGORY FARe
ACCIDENT ACCIDENT
Minor MINe Major MAJe
A 13 10.13 0 3.566 1 0.304 14
B 1 0.724 0 0.255 0 0.022 1
C 222 227.203 85 79.989 7 6.808 314
D 31 28.943 9 10.19 0 0.867 40
TOTAL 267 94 8 369

155
O E O-E (O - E)2 (O - E)2/E CSR
13 10.13 2.87 8.2369 0.813119447 0.901731361 FAILED
1 0.724 0.276 0.076176 0.10521547 0.324369341 FAILED
-
222 227.203 -5.203 27.071209 0.119149875 FAILED
0.345180931
31 28.943 2.057 4.231249 0.146192482 0.382351254 FAILED
-
0 3.566 -3.566 12.716356 3.566 FAILED
1.888385554
-
0 0.255 -0.255 0.065025 0.255 FAILED
0.504975247
85 79.989 5.011 25.110121 0.313919676 0.560285353 FAILED
-
9 10.19 -1.19 1.4161 0.138969578 FAILED
0.372786236
1 0.304 0.696 0.484416 1.593473684 1.262328675 FAILED
0 0.022 -0.022 0.000484 0.022 -0.14832397 FAILED
7 6.808 0.192 0.036864 0.005414806 0.073585366 FAILED
-
0 0.867 -0.867 0.751689 0.867 FAILED
0.931128348
X2 7.945455018
Df 6
Α 0.05
Table X2 12.592
ACCEPT
H0
H02

C. Years of Operation

YEARS OF NON FATAL ACCIDENT FATAL TOTAL


FARe
OPERATION ACCIDENT ACCIDENT
Minor MINe Major MAJe
1 - 5 yrs. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 - 10 yrs. 29 31.114 7 10.954 7 0.932 43
11 - 15 yrs. 3 3.618 2 1.274 0 0.108 5
16 - 20 yrs. 223 223.585 85 78.715 1 6.699 309
> 20 yrs. 12 8.683 0 3.057 0 0.26 12
TOTAL 267 94 8 369

O E O-E (O - E)2 (O - E)2/E CSR


0 0 0 0 - - -
-
29 31.114 -2.114 4.468996 0.143632963 FAILED
0.378989396
-
3 3.618 -0.618 0.381924 0.105562189 FAILED
0.324903353
-
223 223.585 -0.585 0.342225 0.001530626 FAILED
0.039123215

156
12 8.683 3.317 11.002489 1.267129909 1.12566865 FAILED
0 0 0 0 - - -
-
7 10.954 -3.954 15.634116 1.42725178 FAILED
1.194676433
2 1.274 0.726 0.527076 0.413717425 0.643208695 FAILED
85 78.715 6.285 39.501225 0.501825891 0.708396704 FAILED
-
0 3.057 -3.057 9.345249 3.057 FAILED
1.748427865
0 0 0 0 - - -
7 0.932 6.068 36.820624 39.5071073 6.285467946 ALRIGHT
-
0 0.108 -0.108 0.011664 0.108 FAILED
0.328633535
-
1 6.699 -5.699 32.478601 4.848276011 ALRIGHT
2.201880108
-
0 0.26 -0.26 0.0676 0.26 FAILED
0.509901951
X2 51.64103409
df 8
Α 0.05
Table X2 15.507
REJECT
H0
H02

D. Number of Employees

NO. OF NON FATAL ACCIDENT FATAL TOTAL


FARe
EMPLOYEES ACCIDENT ACCIDENT
Minor MINe Major MAJe
Micro (1-9) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Small (10-99) 266 265.553 94 93.491 7 7.957 367
Medium (100-
1 1.447 0 0.509 1 0.043 2
199)
TOTAL 267 94 8 369

O E O-E (O - E)2 (O - E)2/E CSR


0 0 0 0 - - -
266 265.553 0.447 0.199809 0.000752426 0.027430386 FAILED
-
1 1.447 -0.447 0.199809 0.138085003 FAILED
0.371597906
0 0 0 0 - - -
94 93.491 0.509 0.259081 0.002771187 0.05264206 FAILED
-
0 0.509 -0.509 0.259081 0.509 FAILED
0.713442359
0 0 0 0 - - -
-
7 7.957 -0.957 0.915849 0.115099786 FAILED
0.339263594
1 0.043 0.957 0.915849 21.29881395 4.615063808 ALRIGHT
X2 22.06452236
df 4
α 0.05

157
Table X2 9.488
REJECT
H0
H02

F. Types of Services

NO. OF NON FATAL ACCIDENT FATAL TOTAL


FARe
EMPLOYEES ACCIDENT ACCIDENT
Minor MINe Major MAJe
GB 262 256.146 92 90.179 0 7.675 354
GE 1 0.724 0 0.255 0 0.022 1
GB & GE 4 9.407 2 3.312 7 0.282 13
Specialty 0 0.724 0 0.255 1 0.022 1
TOTAL 267 94 8 369

O E O-E (O - E)2 (O - E)2/E CSR


262 256.146 5.854 34.269316 0.133788215 0.365770713 FAILED
1 0.724 0.276 0.076176 0.10521547 0.324369341 FAILED
-
4 9.407 -5.407 29.235649 3.107861061 FAILED
1.762912664
-
0 0.724 -0.724 0.524176 0.724 FAILED
0.850881895
92 90.179 1.821 3.316041 0.036771765 0.191759654 FAILED
-
0 0.255 -0.255 0.065025 0.255 FAILED
0.504975247
-
2 3.312 -1.312 1.721344 0.519729469 FAILED
0.720922651
-
0 0.255 -0.255 0.065025 0.255 FAILED
0.504975247
-
0 7.675 -7.675 58.905625 7.675 ACCEPT
2.770379035
0 0.022 -0.022 0.000484 0.022 -0.14832397 FAILED
7 0.282 6.718 45.131524 160.0408652 12.65072588 ACCEPT
1 0.022 0.978 0.956484 43.47654545 6.593674655 ACCEPT
X2 216.3517767
df 6
α 0.05
Table X2 12.592
REJECT
H0
H02

158
Appendix G

Correlation Analysis

Test of Independence between Total Accident Rate and Grade on Safety Standard

of Construction Companies

A. Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient

TAR% Per
GRADE
COMPANY Company Y2 X2 XY
(X)
(Y)
A1 0.81 3.95 0.6561 15.6025 3.1995
A2 82.75 3.9 6847.5625 15.21 322.725
A3 3.23 2.375 10.4329 5.640625 7.67125
A4 0 4.675 0 21.855625 0
A5 0 3.425 0 11.730625 0
B1 0.27 3.525 0.0729 12.425625 0.95175
B2 0.27 2.125 0.0729 4.515625 0.57375
B3 1.35 2.775 1.8225 7.700625 3.74625
B4 9.43 3.85 88.9249 14.8225 36.3055
B5 0 2.8 0 7.84 0
C1 1.89 3.175 3.5721 10.080625 6.00075
C2 0 2.975 0 8.850625 0
TOTAL 100 39.55 6953.1168 136.275 381.17375
N 12
r 0.271
T 0.89
Df 10
Α 0.95
ttable 1.74
ACCEPT
H0
H03

B. Spearman’s Rank-Order Correlation Coefficient

159
TAR% Per
COMPANY Company GRADE (X) Rank Y Rank X Di Di2
(Y)
A1 0.81 3.95 7 11 4 16

A2 82.75 3.9 12 10 -2 4

A3 3.23 2.375 10 2 -8 64

A4 0 4.675 2.5 12 9.5 90.25

A5 0 3.425 2.5 7 4.5 20.25

B1 0.27 3.525 5.5 8 2.5 6.25

B2 0.27 2.125 5.5 1 -4.5 20.25

B3 1.35 2.775 8 3 -5 25

B4 9.43 3.85 11 9 -2 4

B5 0 2.8 2.5 4 1.5 2.25

C1 1.89 3.175 9 6 -3 9

C2 0 2.975 2.5 5 2.5 6.25

TOTAL 100 39.55 0 267.5


N 12
rs 0.07
rstable 0.46
ACCEPT
H0
H03

160