THE VIEW FROM TAFT

In August 2018, Republic Act 11058, otherwise known as “An Act Strengthening Compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Standards and Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof,” was enacted. This law seeks to enforce stricter and wider coverage for compliance with safety rules in the workplace, and provides that “the State shall ensure a safe and healthful workplace for all working people by affording them full protection against all hazards in their work environment. It shall ensure that the provisions of the Labor Code of the Philippines, all domestic laws, and internationally recognized standards on occupational safety and health are being fully enforced and complied with by the employers, and it shall provide penalties for any violation thereof.” The Act makes it clear that employee safety is primarily the responsibility of the employer.

Unlike the previous Philippine Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Standards for work establishments, the new law specifies clear penalties for violations. For instance, a fine of P100,000 per day is imposed for an employer’s willful failure or refusal to comply with OSH standards until the violation is corrected. Worker competency certifications are also strictly enforced, particularly for those performing critical operations. Competency standards and assessment procedures will be established by the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) and the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC).

The essence of the Act is greater protection for worker’s

The atmosphere should be in the context of enhancing employer-employee relationships, not merely avoiding legal sanctions. Both management and employees must constantly be alert for potential hazards or sources of harm in the workplace.

rights to safety. Thus, the law provides workers with the right to refuse to work if, based on DoLE’s assessment, there is imminent danger that may result in illness, injury, or death. Also, workers are ensured of protection from any potential retaliation when they report workplace accidents, dangerous occurrences, and hazards to DoLE and other competent agencies.

Compared with the OSH Standards, the new law clearly encompasses all types of business and non-government entities. These include establishments under the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) and all kinds of business enterprises — even micro and small enterprises. Thus, all types of nongovernment institutions are covered, such as academe, media, and NGOs. The new law also specifies the coverage areas for safety rules, which include, among others, emergency preparedness and response plan; waste management system; dust control and management; provision of workers’ welfare facilities; provision of safety signs; provision and use of personal protective equipment (PPE); and safety and health promotion, training, and education.

In light of the expanded coverage of the new safety law, governance mechanisms must be effective, responsive, and sustainable. The organization’s structure for accountability and responsibility is critical because the challenge lies in the implementation of the safety rules. Organizational members must discuss and set clear agreements on how implementation, monitoring, and evaluation should proceed. The atmosphere should be in the context of enhancing employeremployee relationships, not merely avoiding legal sanctions. Both parties should recognize that it might be difficult for them to clearly identify and anticipate all possible hazards that could occur in the workplace. As such, both management and employees must constantly be alert for potential hazards or sources of harm in the workplace.

The documentation of operational procedures is equally important. Using digital technology for information and communication systems on safety can contribute to efficient control systems. However, these technical mechanisms do not fully guarantee workplace safety. The workers’ attitudes toward risk are an important factor, such as their acceptance on what constitutes as imminent danger in the workplace. This psychosocial dimension spells the difference between workers’ “ignorance” about and “ignoring” certain hazards in the workplace.

Laying out the organizational structure for safety compliance should take into account the political dynamics among key persons. The bargaining for power or sharing of decision making among groups may not be straightforward as usually, several units (e.g., Administration Office, Security and Safety Office, Sustainability Office, Medical Unit, Corporate Social Responsibility Unit) are responsible for safety within the organization. In the emergency preparedness and response plan, for instance, which unit should lead the Incident Command Center?

To comply with the employee safety law, governance mechanisms must be done in good faith by both employer and the employees. Reasonable timeframes should be set. Motivating factors, such as recognition and rewards, should be in place. A grievance committee should also handle complaints and form acceptable solutions.

The new safety law hopefully will create and nurture a culture of resilience and preparedness in all types of establishments. After all, as can be seen in some workplace safety posters, “Safety rules are your best tools.”

ODR. RACHEL ALVENDIA-QUERO is an associate professorial lecturer at the Management and Organization Department, Ramon V. Del Rosario College of Business of De La Salle University, Manila. She teaches Human Resource Management with Organizational Behavior as well as Business Organization and Management. She has done research studies on the private sector’s role in disaster risk reduction and management.

rachel.quero @dlsu.edu.ph