3.1. Demographic characteristics of respondents
The survey questionnaires were administered to 110 persons. 93 persons representing 84.5% were males whereas 17 persons representing 15.5% were females as shown in Table 3.1. Majority of respondents for the study were within the age range of 20-29 years whereas the least age group respondents were those within 50 years and above (table 3.1). The rest of the respondents between the ages of 30-39 and 40-49 years were 18.2% and 17.5% respectively.
The study recorded a higher number (44) of respondents with a middle form/JHS level of education representing 40.0%. It was preceded by SHS/O’Level/A ‘level and Primary education representing 28 (25.5 %) and 25 (22.7 %) respectively. However, 6 persons representing 5.5% of the respondents had tertiary education (table 3.1).
In regards to marital status, 66 persons reported married whereas 44 persons are single representing 60% and 40% respectively. Majority of respondents used in the survey has a temporary working status representing 86 (78.2%) whilst 24 (21.8) respondents are permanent workers (table 3.1).
Majority of respondents has worked with the company from within 1-4years representing 88(80%) whereas 1 person has work less than 12 months with the company. The rest of the respondents had work for 5years and above representing 21(19.1%) (table 3.1).
Table 3.1: Demographic characteristics of respondents
|
Frequency
(N=110)
|
Percentage (%)
|
Sex
Male
Female
|
93
17
|
84.5
15.5
|
Age
20-29years
30-39years
40-49years
50years and above
|
61
20
19
10
|
55.5
18.2
17.3
9.1
|
Educational Level
Non Formal
Primary
JHS/Middle form
SHS/O'Level/A'level
Tertiary
|
7
25
44
28
6
|
6.4
22.7
40.0
25.5
5.5
|
Marital Status
Married
Single
|
66
44
|
60.0
40.0
|
Status of Work
Permanent
Temporal
|
24
86
|
21.8
78.2
|
Working Years
1-4years
5years and above
Less than 12months
|
88
21
1
|
80
19.1
0.1
|
3.2. Accident Occurrence Survey
The majority of the respondents reported hadn’t had an accident whilst executing a task 66 (60%) whereas 44(40%) had an accident in their line of duty (Table 3.2). The major kind of accidents identified in the study was cut/bruises 24(55%), falling objects 8(18%), slips (16%), and Fall 3 (7%) respectively (Table 3.2). 2 (4%) persons did not indicate which kind of accident experienced.
Almost all recoded accidents were minor injuries 36(82%) whereas 3(7%) persons had major
Injuries and more than half of 30(68%) of the respondents reported that the accident did not affect their attendance.
Table 3.2 Accident Occurrence by Respondents
Have you ever had an accident whilst executing a task?
Yes
No
|
Frequencies
|
Percentages
|
44
66
|
40
60
|
What kind of accident was it?
Cut/Bruise
Fall
Falling object
Slip
Non- response
|
3
8
7
2
|
7
18
16
4
|
What was the nature of the accident experienced?
Minor
Majority
Non-response
|
36
3
5
|
82
7
11
|
Did the accident affect your attendance at work?
Yes
NO
Non-response
|
13
30
1
|
30
68
2
|
3.3. Relationship between workers' attendance, involvement in accident and the nature of the accident.
Chi-square analysis was conducted to establish the relationship between workers' attendance vis-à-vis involvement in accident and the nature of the accident (table 3.3.1). Comparing the relationship between work attendance and engaging in accidents, a p-value of 0.512 was obtained which is higher than alpha 0.005 (table 3.3).This can be concluded that the association is not statistically significant whereas the comparison of work attendance and the nature of the accident also gave a statistically significant p-value of 0.009. The chi-square analysis is detailed in table 3.3 and table 3.4.
Table 3.3 Relationship between involvement in accident and work attendance.
Have you ever had an accident whilst executing a task?
|
Did it affect your attendance?
No Yes
|
Total
|
No
|
1
2.27%
|
0
0.00%
|
1
2.27%
|
Yes
|
30
68.18%
|
13
29.55%
|
43
97.73%
|
Total
|
31
70.45%
|
13
29.55%
|
44
100%
|
df= 1, p=> 0.512
Table 3.3.1. Relationship between nature of accident and work attendance.
Did it affect your attendance?
|
What was the nature of accident experienced?
Major Injuries Minor Injuries
|
Total
|
No
|
0
0.00%
|
27
67.50%
|
27
67.50%
|
Yes
|
3
7.50%
|
10
25.00%
|
13
32.50%
|
Total
|
3
7.50%
|
37
92.50%
|
40
100.00%
|
df= 1, p= <0.009
3.4. Knowledge on Health and Safety Practices
Majority of respondent 87(79.1) had knowledge on practices of safety as governed by constitution. (Table 3.4). Almost all 109 (99.1%) the respondents said labor inspectors visit site and are aware of the company’s policies on safety and information on safety signs 109 (99.1%). Knowledge on health hazards and the use of personal protective equipment are known by all respondents 110(100%) as shown in (Table 3.4) below.
Table 3.4. Respondents Knowledge on Health and Safety Practices
|
Frequencies
|
Percentages
|
Do you know working in a safe environment is a requirement governed by a constitution in Ghana?
Yes
NO
|
87
23
|
79.1
20.9
|
Does labor inspectors visit workplace in accordance with the labor Act to examine activities on site?
Yes
Non-response
|
109
1
|
99.1
0.9
|
Are you aware of the regulations and policies regarding workers safety in the firm?
Yes
Non-response
|
109
1
|
99.1
0.9
|
Do you know the possible health hazards at the construction firm?
Yes
|
110
|
100
|
Do you have knowledge on safety signs and their purpose at the construction site?
Yes
No
|
109
1
|
99.1
0.9
|
Do you have knowledge on the use of Personal Protective equipment?
Yes
|
110
|
100
|
3.5. Safety Management Systems
Majority of respondents agreed 103(94%) that the organization has a good monitoring, inspection, and evaluation scheme whereas 55(50%) strongly agreed that there are active and efficient safety reps.(Table 3.5).
As indicated in (table 3.5), 59(54%) respondents agreed that safety suggestions are acted upon by management whilst a few persons 6(5%) weren’t sure about the outcome of their suggestions. A reliability test was run on responses where the Cronbach alpha is 0.763 which is close to 1 and indicates a high level of consistency.
Table 3.5. Respondents assessment of safety management systems
Item
|
Strongly Agree
n (%)
|
Agree
n (%)
|
Neutral
n (%)
|
Disagree
n (%)
|
Average score
|
Good monitoring, inspection, and evaluation scheme
|
5(4%)
|
103(94)
|
2(2)
|
_
|
2.0
|
Daily monitoring and inspection
|
49(44)
|
60(55)
|
1(1)
|
_
|
1.6
|
Organization policies and guidelines on workers' safety
|
36(32.7)
|
74(67.3)
|
_
|
_
|
1.7
|
Active and effective health and safety committee and rep
|
55(50)
|
54(49.1)
|
1(0.9)
|
_
|
1.5
|
Suggestions about safety acted upon by management
|
45(41)
|
59(54)
|
6(5)
|
_
|
1.6
|
Systems are in place to identify, prevent, and deal with hazards
|
49(44)
|
60(55)
|
1(1)
|
_
|
1.5
|
Cronbach Alpha = 0.763
3.6. Attitude on Occupational Health and Safety
The majority of respondents agreed 99 (90.9%) notify safety team at the site on hazards encountered therein never compromising their safety for production strongly agreed by a majority of respondents 59(54.1%) which is shown in (table 3.6). A higher percentage (71%) of the respondent however will not breach OHS for higher production whilst a few will. A reliability test was run on responses where the Cronbach alpha is 0.649 which indicates a high level of consistency.
Table 3.6. Respondents attitude towards health and safety practices
Item
|
Strongly Agree
n (%)
|
Agree
n (%)
|
Neutral
n (%)
|
Disagree
n (%)
|
Average score
|
Notifying safety on hazards
|
10 (9.1)
|
99(90.9)
|
_
|
_
|
1.9
|
Never compromise safety for production
|
59(54.1)
|
45(41)
|
5(5)
|
_
|
1.5
|
Breaching OHS isn’t big deal
|
3(2)
|
8(7)
|
21(20)
|
78(71)
|
3.5
|
Wearing PPE is as company requirement
|
51(46)
|
58(53)
|
1(1)
|
_
|
1.6
|
Motivated to comply with safety measures
|
50(45)
|
57(52)
|
3(3)
|
_
|
1.6
|
I know channels to report safety issues
|
56(51)
|
54(49)
|
_
|
_
|
1.5
|
Cronbach Alpha = 0.649
3.7. Effect of Occupation Accident on Job Performance
Accidents recorded between (2006-2018) and estimate for production and workers used in the same duration were obtained from the safety manager as secondary data for the study (table 3.7). The Pearson correlation(r) was used to estimate the impact of accidents on labor productivity (performance) (table 3.8) with a scatter diagram adopted to reveal the relationship between the two variables (Figure 3.1). The Pearson coefficient (r= -0.164) showed a negative correlation between accident and labor productivity (table 4.9).
Table 3.7. Accident records at construction firm.
Year
|
Number of accidents reported
|
2006
|
45
|
2007
|
38
|
2008
|
49
|
2009
|
10
|
2010
|
19
|
2011
|
87
|
2012
|
18
|
2013
|
27
|
2014
|
34
|
2015
|
56
|
2016
|
22
|
2017
|
14
|
2018
|
28
|
Source: Estimate from safety manager, 5th September, 2019
Table 3.8. Labor Productivity
Year
|
Labor productivity
|
2006
|
772
|
2007
|
2857
|
2008
|
1937
|
2009
|
1937
|
2010
|
927
|
2011
|
811
|
2012
|
2357
|
2013
|
2500
|
2014
|
3111
|
2015
|
2512
|
2016
|
1431
|
2017
|
1308
|
2018
|
1904
|
Source: Estimate from safety manager, 5th September, 2019
Where labor productivity was estimated as; Labor productivity
Table 3.9. Pearson correlation of accidents /injuries and job performance in terms of
Labor productivity
|
Labor productivity
|
Accidents
|
Labor productivity
|
1.0000
|
|
Accidents
|
-0.164
|
1.0000
|
r = -0.164