Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
_______________ _______________
Date Signed Date Signed
_______________
Date Signed
_______________
Date Signed
_______________
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.
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
(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.
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
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
Augustine Lawa Calamba City, Laguna. She is a member of the Civil Engineering
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
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
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
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
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
Conclusion 93
Recommendations 95
References 97
Appendices 100
List of Figures ix
List of Appendices xi
vi
List of Tables
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
viii
List of Figures
ix
OSHMS Tools and Practices Being Implemented by Construction
16 Firm according to Number of Employees 53
x
List of Appendices
Appendix
Title Page
No.
xi
List of Acronyms/Abbreviations
FA Fatal Accidents
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
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.
between variables
Fatal accident rate – percentage of the number of fatal accidents in a variable to the total
Health and Safety Executive (HSE) – Local authorities are responsible for the
enforcement of health and safety legislation in shops, offices, and other parts of
xiii
non-fatalaccidents (NA) – number of non-fatal accidents happened in a community or
category
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
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
Total Accident Rate – percentage of the number of accidents in a variable to the total
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
standards has been developed extensively, but not much in developing economies(Colina,
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).
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
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
the growing attention to occupational accidents, the cost of accident is equally given
largely determined by gender, job demand, and control and support factors; demographic
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.
for all employers and employees in any countries.But as the world has become smaller
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
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
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
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
3
Scope and Delimitation of the Study
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.
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
companies who gave all the data needed and willingly answered both questionnaires for
this research.
4
Review of Related Literature
Construction and accidents are related to each other. Countries practicing Labor-
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
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
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).
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
6
inadequate data. In parallel with the growing demand for effectiveness and to lessen the
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
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%
(Source: Tim Howarth, 2009) ( Struck by moving object, Struck against something
stationary, Handling, lifting or carrying, slips, trips or falls, Falls from height,
Others )
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
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)
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
9
9% 17%
7%
7%
14%
46%
Howarth, 2009) ( Struck by moving object, Struck by a moving vehicle, Falls from
Others )
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
10
of building or structure, explosion or fire, escape of flammable substances and escape of
substances.
in spite of its size, type and nature and all of its prerequisites are meant to be
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
11
Occupational Health and Safety Management System OSHAS 18001:2007.
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).
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.
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
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
accident were disregarded for safety of the construction worker and its
hardhat and lifelines. The collapsed gondola had no official operator to raise and
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
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
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
Philippines
notification system and recording of data concerning fatalities in the industry in the start.
(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
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
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
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
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
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
are indicated in the "Manual of Professional Practice for Civil Engineers". The
services offered in the Philippine construction sector are the following; feasibility
facilities, appraisal and rate studies and preparation of operation and maintenance
16
being extracted by construction firms are based on PCAB classification, which are
General Building (GB), General Engineering, both General Building and General
water treatment plant and system, and parks, playground or recreational work
(Juanzon, 2014).
control, dams, reservoir or tunneling, water supply, ports and harbor or offshore
17
Methodology
level and construction accident profiles in companies using the following descriptive
tools: (a) Chi Square and Corrected Standardized Residual (CSR), and (b) Correlation
Analysis)
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.
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.
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.
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
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
delivered to respondents from selected construction firms in Laguna. Rating scale was
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
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
Analysis of Data
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
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
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.
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
23
Major Accident Rate (MAR) were obtained by dividing the number of
Lastly, the Fatal Accident Rate (FAR) were obtained by dividing the
Note that the total accident is the sum of nonfatal accidents and fatal
24
After data analysis, this study provided appropriate mitigating actions in
performed a correlation analysis between Total Accident Rate (TAR) and Grade
two methods of correlating two variables and these are Pearson’s Correlation
Coefficient (r) and Spearman’s Rank Order Coefficient (rs). These values provide
of variables.
Equation 6
𝑁 ∑ 𝑋𝑌 − ∑ 𝑋 ∑ 𝑌
𝑟= (6)
√(𝑁 ∑ 𝑋 2 − (∑ 𝑋)2 ) ∗ (𝑁 ∑ 𝑌 2 − (∑ 𝑌)2 )
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
27
Table 6
Summary of Research Instrument and Statistical Tool
Hypothesis Instrument to be Used Statistical Tool
28
Results and Discussion
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
Figure 4 shows the total number of respondents that answered both questionnaire
60%of the construction companies answered only the preliminary questionnaire due to
40%
60%
29
Profile of construction firms according to PCAB Category. Table 7 shows the
Category. Based on the data gathered, the largest percent of correspondent were
C companies each had (25%) of the total correspondent while Category B had
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
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
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
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
33.33% of the total correspondent, companies with years of operation from more
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
25% of the total correspondent. The lowest correspondents were from company
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
32
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Yes No
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
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
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
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
The significant differences among the construction firms with regards to their
35
Table 13
Knowledge Scale Differences of Construction Firm according to Profile Factors
KNOWLEDGE
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
shown in Figure 7impliedthat Category A and Category D have the most number
have almost equal number of respondents that are aware of ISO 45001:2014.
0
A B C D
No)
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
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
Category B companies and Category C companies were very familiar with ISO
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
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)
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
39
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Micro (1-9) Small (10-99) Medium (100-199)
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
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.
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
schools.
0
1 - 5 yrs. 6 - 10 yrs. 11 - 15 yrs. 16 - 20 yrs. > 20 yrs.
10 years of operation and 11 to 15 years of operation are very familiar with ISO
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
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
43
5
0
GB GE GB & GE Specialty
No)
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
44
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
GB GE GB & GE Specialty
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
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
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
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
Emergency Medicines
Medical Facility
H&S Committee
Good Housekeeping
Adequate Aisles/Passageways
H & S Training
H & S Policy
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
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
companies were from category A and B, two (2) of the companies were category
The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that
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
The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that
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
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
responded to the survey, eight (8) companies admitted to practice Fire Protection
49
Equipment/Facilities were from category B and D having one (1) company
The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that
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
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.
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
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
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, two (2) of the companies were from category D, one (1) of the
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.
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
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)
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
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
companies were from small sized company, two (2) companies were from
Employment Involvement.
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
54
The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that
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
The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that
Protective Equipment, seven (7) of the companies were from small sized
company, four (4) of the companies were from medium sized company, while the
micro sized company having one (1) company practicing Personal Protective
Equipment.
responded to the survey, eight (8) companies admitted to practice Fire Protection
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
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
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
The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that
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.
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)
56
The researchers determined that out of twelve (12) companies that
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
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, 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)
The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that
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
57
The researchers disclosed that out of twelve (12) companies that
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)
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
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
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
Emergency Medicines
Medical Facility
H&S Committee
Good Housekeeping
Adequate Aisles/Passageways
H & S Training
H & S Policy
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 17. OSHMS Tools and Practices Being Implemented by Construction Firm
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
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
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
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
operation, two (2) were from companies with 6 to 10 years of operation, one (1)
more than 20 years of operation, while the least number of company to practice
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
61
The researchers ascertained that out of twelve (12) companies that
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
The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that
responded to the survey, fifteen (8) companies admitted to practice Fire Protection
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
Equipment/Facilities.
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
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
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,
companies with more than 20 years of operation, one (1) werefrom companies
operation, while the least number of company to practice 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, 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
H&S Department were from companies with 1 to 5 years of operation and from
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, 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
with more than 20 years of operation, having no (0) company practicing External
H&S Department.
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
H&S Committee.
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
(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
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
practice Formal Site H&S Inspection were from companies with 1 to 5 years of
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
Figure 18. OSHMS Tools and Practices Being Implemented by Construction Firm
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 both GB and GE services, two (2) were from companies
offering only GB services and companies offering special services, while the least
Involvement were from companies offering only GE services having one (1)
The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that
services, two (2) were from companies offering special services and companies
68
Adequate Aisles/Passageways were from companies offering only GE services
The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies who
Housekeeping, three (3) were from companies offering both GB and GE services
and companies offering only GB services, two (2) were from companies offering
Housekeeping were from company offering only GE services having one (1)
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
responded to the survey, eight (8) companies admitted to practice Fire Protection
69
and GE services and companies offering only GB services, while the least number
offering special services andcompanies offering only GE services having only one
The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that
Safety Signages, four (4) were from companies offering only GB services, three
(3) were from companies offering special services andcompanies offering both
Safety Signages were from companies offering only GE services having one (1)
The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that
Handling and Storage. Out of the 7 companies that admitted to practice Material
Handling and Storage, two (2) were from companies offering special
Handling and Storage were from companies offering GE services having one (1)
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
while the least number of company to practice Waste Disposal System were from
Disposal System.
responded to the survey, four (4) companies admitted to practice Internal H&S
Department, two (2) were from companies offering both GB and GE services, one
special services, while the least number of company to practice Internal H&S
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, two (2) were from companies offering GB services,one (1) was from
services and company offering both GB and GE services having no (0) company
71
The researchers found out that out of twelve (12) companies that
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
offering special services having one (1) company practicing H&S Committee.
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
Medicines, four (4) were from companies offering both GB and GE services and
companies offering only GB services, three (3) were from companies offering
Medicines were from companies offering only GE services having one (1)
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)
The significant differences among the construction firms with regards to level of
of Operation and Type of Services) are presented in this section. All data were gathered
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
company and severity using chi-square test method, the researchers found out that
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
unacceptable.
construction firms with regards to type of service. Both results on minor and
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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 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.
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
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
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
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
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
considered this can be treated with help of emergency medicines or first aid tool.
92
Conclusion
The result showed that the level of awareness based on knowledge and practices
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,
severity. The PCAB category and district have no relationship with respect to severity.
Significant Difference between Total Accident Rate (TAR) and Application of Safety
Based on the result of correlation analysis, the researchers used two methods:
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
linear relationships that exist between Total Accident Rate (TAR) and Grade on
93
Application of Safety Standards of companies. The correlated coefficient reveals that
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
94
Recommendation
Based on the findings from the study, the following recommendations are
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
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
Alhajeri, M. (2011). Alhajeri, M. (2011) Health and safety in the construction industry:
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
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
97
Cheng, C.-W., & Wu, T.-C. (2012). An Investigation and analysis of major accidents
Safety Science.
Development.
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
Ganah, A., & John, G. (2014). Integrating Building Information Modeling and Health and
Glover, H. (1974). Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. England: Her Majesty's
Guo, B., Yiu, T. W., & González, V. (2015). Identifying behaviour patterns of
98
Gurcanli, G. E., & Mungen, U. (2013). Analysis of Construction Accidents in Turkey and
Hämäläinen, P., Saarela, K. L., & Takala, J. (2008). Global trend according to estimated
Hea, Q., Dong, S., Rose, T., Li, H., Yin, Q., & Cao, D. (2015). Systematic impact of
HSE. (2003). Causal factors in construction accidents. Retrieved from Health and Safety
Executive: http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr156.pdf
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_45001_briefing_note.pdf
guideline to the Small and Meium Enterprise (SME) Construction Firms in the
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
99
Pedrosa, V. P. (2010, January 8). Imelda Marcos: The Rise and Fall of One of the
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
perspective.
Tien, E. T. (2011). Construction Safety: Accident Case Studies & Enforcement Analysis.
100
Appendices
Appendix A
Occupational Health and Safety Standard (Based on Preliminary Questionnaire
Section C and Follow – Up Questionnaire Section B)
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
reports of inspection and accident investigation, on meetings and activities a report must
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
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
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.
Steps shall be taken to prevent danger to workers or operating equipment from any live
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
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.
First, no electrical installation shall be undertaken without the plans having been
electricity or by any person until the necessary final inspection is conducted and a safety
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
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
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:
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
1222.01: Application:
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
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
the owner/manager or his authorized representative shall file with the Secretary or his
gates and doors, in triplicate, accompanied by three copies of each sheet of plans in white
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
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).
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
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
All moving parts of machinery used shall be guarded in accordance with the requirements
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
All temporary structure shall be properly supported by the use of guys, stays, and other
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.
Safe means of access and egress shall be provided and maintained to and from every
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.
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
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.
required to be there and only when all necessary protection against hazards are provided.
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
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.
Personal Protective equipment as required in Rule 1080 shall be provided the workers.
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:
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
less than a third of the excavations depth. When space is limited, the distance shall be
Tools or materials shall be kept at least 1m away from the excavation to prevent
The top of the walls of an excavation more than 2.0 m. deep shall be barricaded to a
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
Every part of an excavation over 2 m. deep where workers work shall be inspected by the
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.
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
ensure that the exhaust gases and fumes are rendered harmless or discharged to a point
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
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.
All scaffolds shall be properly maintained and every part shall be kept, fixed and secured
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
The safe working load or the number of persons that can be carried in a hoist shall
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
No person shall be raised, lowered or carried by a power driven lifting appliance except
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.
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
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. .
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.
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
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
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
1417: DEMOLITION:
1417.01:
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.
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
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
avoid damage from collapse of a budding being demolished or any part of it when any
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
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
1. Lifting Machinery. The failure of any load bearing part of, the collapse of, or the
a. Lift or hoist
b. Crane or derrick
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.
explosion which results in the stoppage of the plant involved for more than 24 hours or
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
b. Causes an electrical discharge from such an electric line by coming into close
proximity to it.
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
b. A misfire (other than one at a mine or quarry or inside a well or one involving a
c. The failure of the shots in any demolition operation to cause the intended extent
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
reportable other than at mine reportable under these regulations) involving first-aid 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.
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
i. Used in a mine; or
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
pipeline works:
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
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
126
e. Any unintentional change in the subsoil or seabed in the vicinity 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:
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
a. inside of a building:
127
i. Of 100 kg or more of a flammable liquid
point
b. in the open air, of 500 kg or more of any of the substances referred to in sub-
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
129
Appendix D
Questionnaire Survey
Preliminary Questionnaire
SECTION A. PROFILE
COMPANY: ____________________________________________________________
Please encircle:
Laguna District: A. 1st District (Santa Rosa, Biñan and San Pedro)
Years in Operation:
Type of Services:
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
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
131
3.) In your construction firm, are you implementing ISO 45001:2014 standards? (Please encircle your
answer)
A.Yes
B.No
132
2. Follow-up Questionnaire
Company:_______________________________
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
________________
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
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
Position:
Date of interview:
Contact no :
138
Appendix E
Data Collected
Preliminary Questionnaire
A. Profiling
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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:
3 – Often 2 – Sometimes
1 - Never
146
Appendix F
Chi-square Test
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
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
Level of
Category Expected O-E (O - E)2 (O - E)2/E
Awareness
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Profile Factors
154
A.District
B. PCAB Category
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
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
157
Table X2 9.488
REJECT
H0
H02
F. Types of Services
158
Appendix G
Correlation Analysis
Test of Independence between Total Accident Rate and Grade on Safety Standard
of Construction Companies
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
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
B3 1.35 2.775 8 3 -5 25
B4 9.43 3.85 11 9 -2 4
C1 1.89 3.175 9 6 -3 9
160