Accident and Safety Violation in Automobile Repair Workshops in Ghana-libre

8/9/2019 Accident and Safety Violation in Automobile Repair Workshops in Ghana-libre

1/10

MultiCraftInternational Journal of Business, Management and Social Sciences

Vol. 4, No. 1, 2013, pp. 12-21

INTERNATIONAL

JOURNAL OF

BUSINESS,

MANAGEMENT AND

SOCIAL SCIENCES

www.ijbmss-ng.com

2013 MultiCraft Limited. All rights reserved

Accident and safety violation in automobile repair workshops in Ghana

Maxwell S. Akple*, Richard Fiifi Turkson, Robert Biscoff, Godwin Y. Nyamuame

*Corresponding Author: Address: Ho Polytechnic, Mechanical Engineering Dept., P.O. Box HP 217, Ho, Volta Region, GHANA.*Corresponding Author: e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Occupational accidents in developing countries such as Ghana could be minimized if workers adhere to safety rules and

regulations. In this study, accident risk factors within some selected automobile repair workshops in Ghana were assessed foradherence and violation. There were two stages of data collection. First, an observational study was conducted to identify safety

regulations adhered to and violated. Second, 375 questionnaires were administered to mechanics from local garages, government

institution garages and international automobile company garages. The study showed that the use of faulty tools and equipment,workers physical condition and non compliance to standard safety rules and regulations were the main causes of accidents in

automobile repair workshops. However, failure to wear personal protective equipment (PPE)/gear the use of appropriate wedges

to prevent rolling of tires when working on vehicles and the provision of fire extinguishers in the shop area in case of a fireoutbreak were the most violated safety regulations. To prevent or minimize frequent occurrence of accidents, the respondents

mentioned that safety seminars should be conducted on regular basis so as to keep them informed about standard safety

practices.

Keywords:Accident, Safety, Violation, Garage, Ghana.

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

Mechanics are a key human resource in the automobile industry in every economy. In developing countries such as Ghana, most

mechanics are in the informal sector with a marginal number of them being employed in the formal and government institutions to

be in charge of the organizations automobile workshops. Their key roles include maintenance and repair of vehicles. Similar tasks

are being performed in India by automobile repair workers. Tasks such as vehicle spraying and painting, repair of vehicle parts,

body cleaning, welding services and general work are performed by automobile repairers (Vyas et al., 2011). These activities arenot without hazards and therefore it is important to apply safety rules and regulations. An accident is usually an unplanned and

unexpected event which results from a mistake somewhere, somehow and by somebody (Aniekwu, 2007). There are several riskswhich causes accidents in the automobile repair workshops. Mechanics (or workers) in the automobile industry are exposed to a lotof occupational health risks. Some of these risks include exposure to hot noisy environments, presence of dust, fumes, oils, grease

and other chemicals, strenuous work postures, the use of improperly designed tools and machinery and working in poor psycho-

social environments (Hunt et al., 2000; ILO, 2000; Rongo et al., 2004). For instance a study conducted in Tanzania shows that

auto body workers are exposed to hazardous particulates or vapours from grinding, cutting, welding, car preparation, and spraypainting processes in the auto body shops is well established (Rongo, 2004). Taha (2000) also indicated that workers in auto-

mechanics, including welders, are exposed to asbestos, metal dust, organic solvents, paint pigments and automobile exhausts,

which pose serious risks to their health. Therefore adherence to safety rules and regulation to reduce occupational risks and

hazards within the automobile repair workshops is very important.Almost all industries have safety regulations which help to prevent accidents or reduce it to its barest minimum and this applies

to the automobile workshop. This is because the occurrence of accidents within an industry whether fatal or non-fatal causes

suffering to the victim(s), waste funds and resources and time of the industry or owner of the workshop. It is therefore essential


2/10

Akple et al. / International Journal of Business, Management and Social Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2013, pp. 12-2113

for automobile workers to adhere to safety regulations to reduce occupational accidents. Furthermore, studies show that mechanics

have higher rates of occupational health hazards compared to workers in other occupations (Valuri and Routley, 1994; Leung,

1978). In developing countries such as Ghana, enforcement of automobile workshop safety regulations is lacking especially the

local garages. Most of these workshops are in the informal sector and their owners or supervisors were apprentice trainees. They

lack the requisite knowledge in automobile workshop safety regulations. However, automobile workshops of governmentorganizations or institutions are supervised by professionally trained automobile engineers who have appropriate and adequate

knowledge in automobile workshop safety. The international automobile companies have standard automobile workshops where

safety regulations are maintained and enforced.A report from International Labour Office shows that hundreds of thousands of accident cases were recorded in workshops

(World of Work Report, 2012). These included automobile repair workshops of which some of the accident cases resulted into

deaths. However, in developing countries such as Ghana, occupational risk factors in the informal sectors are not well documented.In addition, most of the local artisans working in the informal automobile sector are not well educated and often uninformed

regarding safety practices and risks involved in violating these practices. Therefore this study sought to investigate accidental risk

factors within some selected automobile repair workshops in Ghana for adherence and violation of safety rules and regulations.

1.2 The automobile repair workshops in Ghana

The most common automobile repair workshop in Ghana is the local garages where a group of automotive mechanics come

together to offer automotive maintenance and repair services. They operate under the informal sector with normally one masterowning the shop. The shop is normally built on a piece of land hired from a landlord. A typical local automobile repair workshop

has master mechanics that have different specialization in automotive systems. They include automotive electrician, automotivemechanic, welder, brake binder, interior vehicle liner, body sprayer etc. However, in Ghana, a classical local automobile repair

workshop has not less than three master mechanics in their specialized areas of automotive electrical, automotive mechanic andbrake binder. Each master normally has apprentice trainees who are studying under them. Similar study conducted by Adei et al.

(2011) in Kumasi, the second largest city in Ghana also indicated that about 54% of sprayers including auto body sprayers,

practiced their work in the open air but stored their solvents and equipment in small wooden structures, 13.3% of sprayers

practiced in a wooden structure which served as their workshop, and also storage place for their solvents and equipment.

Another group of automobile repair workshops are garages owned by one person but employs automotive mechanics specializedin different areas. Automobile repair workshops belonging to this category are few in number relative to individual masters

owning their garages. They are also engaged in the repair and maintenance of vehicles. Workshops owned by international

automobile companies are also opened to the general public for general vehicle repair and maintenance but most people do notpatronize their services because of the relatively high fees charged. In Ghana, vehicle owners prefer local automobile workshops

for carrying out repair and replacement of parts. This is usually because of proximity and low service charges.

2. Methods

2.1 Study area description

The study was carried out in five regions in Ghana, where automobile repair workshops especially local garages were dominant.The researchers classified the automobile repair workshops into three categories. Category A consists of local repair workshops

which are very common and normally patronized by almost all vehicle owners. Category B repair workshops are those that belong

to the international automobile companies such as Silver Star Ltd, Toyota Ghana Ltd, Rana motors, Mechanical Lloyed, PHCMotors etc. Because of the high safety standards ensured in these companies, accidents are rarely recorded. Category C comprises

of automobile repair workshops in government organizations or institutions such as Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Ministry of

Health, Ghana Water Company Ltd, Ghana Audit Service etc. In these organizations, there are automobile repair workshops where

the vehicles of the institutions are repaired and maintained. Most of these workshops are not opened to public vehicle owners for

servicing.

2.2 Data collection techniques

The study used multi approach techniques in data collection. It involved observation and questionnaire administration to workersfrom each category of automobile repair workshops identified. This approach was used because of its complementary effect of

strengths and weaknesses associated with each method. This approach was chosen to increase the validity of the study by enrichingthe scope, depth and knowledge derived from the data.

2.2.1 Observations

Observations were made by the researchers by visiting the three categories of the automobile repair workshops identified four

times on different occasions informally. During the trip, factors causing accidents, most violated safety rules and accidentprevention factors were observed within the automobile repair workshops. These factors were recorded on an observational chart.


3/10


2.2.2Survey

A pre-tested interviewer administered questionnaires to some mechanics outside the selected regions. Identified mistakes were

corrected and questions rephrased to avoid ambiguity. The questionnaires were administered to respondents from the three

categories of automobile repair workshops identified. The questionnaire comprised both the open and close ended questions.

Questions were centred on contributing occupational accident factors, most violated safety rules and accident prevention factors.

2.3 Sampling

In all, 375 automobile repair workers who responded to the questionnaire make up the sample size. Two hundred and ninety five

(295) respondents were local garage workers, seventy (70) respondents were from government institutions or organizations with

automobile repair workshops and ten (10) respondents from international automobile companies. The respondents from the localgarages were selected randomly whiles the transport officers and workshop supervisors were purposively selected for garages of

government institutions and international automobile companies respectively. The sampling size was strongly influenced by

willingness of respondents to participate in the studies especially at the international automobile companies.

2.4 Data analysis

The questionnaires were edited, coded and entered into Statistical Package for Social Scientist (SPSS) version 16 software where

the responses tabulated. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out to establish whether significant differences existedbetween accident and safety factors.

3. Results

3.1 Demographics of respondents

The study shows that most of the respondents (95.2%) were males whiles 4.8% were females. This is not surprising because

most repair works in the automobile workshops in Ghana are carried out by males. The respondents had different educational

levels with most of them (28.8%) being basic educational certificate holders (Table 1). Furthermore, most of the respondents whohad up to tertiary education were the ones working in the government institutions automobile garages and international

automobile companies. The study further indicated that respondents had various positions at their workshops with most of them

being apprentices (44%) as shown in Table 2.

Table 1: Demographic characteristics of respondents

Characteristics Frequency PercentageEducational level

Basic 108 28.8

Secondary/ Technical 102 27.2

Tertiary 74 19.7Informal 91 24.3

Position

Workshop supervisors 32 8.5

Chief Mechanic 91 24.3Apprentice 165 44.0

Foremen 9 2.4Master Mechanic 78 20.8

3.2Causes of accidents

Occurrence of accidents hinders the progress of work at the time of incidence and sometimes has future implications. This is

because accident victims would have to be attended to. The study clearly shows that most respondents (58.4%) said they havewitnessed various forms of accidents in automobile repair workshop. The commonest form of accidents witnessed by most

respondents was burning of cars at the workshop (Table 2). However, majority of respondents (62%) mentioned that accidents do

not occur frequently but once in a while and most often caused by negligence on the part of mechanics.Using a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2= Disagree, 3=Indifferent, 4= Agree and 5 = Strongly Agree)

respondents were requested to rate their degree of agreement against each of the identified common causes of accidents from

literature. The mean ratings by the respondents from the three categories of automobile repair workshops were shown in Table 3.

The analysis of the data produced the means for these accident causing factors ranging from 1.88 to 4.00. This indicated that somerespondents disagree that some of the factors were not accident causing factors. But most respondents agree that majority of the

factors are accident causing factors. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) shows that, generally there were significant differences (p


4/10


0.05) between accident causing factors in the three categories of repair workshops sampled. However, Least Significant Difference

(LSD) analysis indicated that most accident causing factors between repair workshops B and C were almost the same.

Table 2: Forms of accidents witnessed by respondents

Forms of accidents witnessed Frequency Percentage

Explosion of chemicals 23 10.5

Tyre burst due to over inflation 5.0 2.3Slipping of jack under the car 40 18.3

Fire outbreak 17 7.8

Accidental burning of vehicle at the workshop 42 19.2Tyre removed due to untightened wheel nut. 35 16.0

Tyre burst 18 8.2

Hand grinding machine took off the finger of a worker 6.0 2.7Acid explosion 6.0 2.7

Battery explosion 12 5.5

Chips of material entered into the eye of a worker 6.0 2.7Car moved because wedges were not used 6.0 2.7

Machine broken hand of a worker 3.0 1.4

Total 219 100.0

Table 3: Causes of accidents in automobile repair workshops

Causes of accidents Category of repair workshops

(Mean responses)

A B C

Use of faulty tools and equipment 3.25 4.00 3.01

Non compliance to standard safety rules and regulation 3.19 3.60 3.67Lack of experience 3.57 3.60 3.66

Improper handling and storage of flammables, explosives and

combustible

3.03 3.30 3.00

Improper handling of tools and equipment 3.04 3.30 3.33Workers fatigue and boredom 3.09 3.30 2.99

Attitude of management and actions towards safety 2.77 2.80 3.33Workers operating environment 2.89 4.00 3.33Natural causes 2.49 3.30 3.33

Inadequate working environment 2.67 3.60 2.99

Workers physical condition 3.67 2.40 2.97

Lack of job satisfaction by workers 2.46 2.40 2.33Monotony (constant exposure to a particular job) 1.88 2.40 3.34

Category A represents local automobile repair workshops

Category B represents international automobile repair workshops

Category C represents government institutions automobile repair workshops

The local mechanics ranked workers physical condition as the highest accident causing factor in their repair workshops (mean

= 3.67). This was considered as the most influential factor since their task depends on the health and strength of workers (Table4).Lack of experience (mean= 3.57) was considered as the second accident causing factor in the local repair workshops. The

third factor was use of faulty tools and equipment (mean = 3.25), whereas the fifth ranked was non compliance to standard

safety rules and regulation (mean = 3.19); the sixth factor was workers fatigue and boredom (mean = 3.09). These six (6) factors

were the top accident causing factors in the local automobile repair workshops in Ghana.

The highest ranked accident causing factors by respondents from international automobile repair workshops were use of faultytools and equipment (mean = 4.00) and workers operating environment (mean = 4.00). Non compliance to standard safety

rules and regulation (mean = 3.60), lack of experience (mean = 3.60) and inadequate working environment (mean = 3.60) were

both ranked as the second accident causing factors in their workshops. The sixth ranked factor was improper handling and storage

of flammables, explosives and combustible (mean = 3.30). These six factors were considered the commonest accident causingfactors among the 13 factors in their repair workshops (Table 5).


5/10


Table 4: Ranking of the accident causing factors by respondents from roadside automobile repair workshops

Causes of accidents Mean Rank

Workers physical condition 3.67 1Lack of experience 3.57 2

Use of faulty tools and equipment 3.25 3

Non compliance to standard safety rules and regulation 3.19 4

Workers fatigue and boredom 3.09 5Improper handling of tools and equipment 3.04 6

Improper handling and storage of flammables, explosives and

combustibles

3.03 7

Workers operating environment 2.89 8

Attitude of management and actions towards safety 2.77 9

Inadequate working environment 2.67 10

Natural causes 2.49 11

Lack of job satisfaction by workers 2.46 12Monotony (constant exposure to a particular job) 1.88 13

Table 5: Ranking of the accident causing factors by respondents from international automobile dealers repair workshops


Use of faulty tools and equipment 4.00 1Workers operating environment 4.00 2


Lack of experience 3.60 4

Inadequate working environment 3.60 5

Improper handling and storage of flammables, explosives and combustibles 3.30 6Improper handling of tools and equipment 3.30 7

Workers fatigue and boredom 3.30 8

Natural causes 3.30 9Attitude of management and actions towards safety 2.80 10

Workers physical condition 2.40 11

Lack of job satisfaction by workers 2.40 12Monotony (constant exposure to a particular job) 2.40 13

According to respondents from government institution repair workshops, non compliance to standard safety rules and

regulation (mean = 3.67) was the highest ranked accident causing factor, followed by lack of experience (mean = 3.66), and

monotony (mean = 3.34). Improper handling of tools and equipment (mean = 3.33), attitude of management and actionstowards safety (mean = 3.33) and workers operating environment (mean =3.33) were the top six ranked accident causing

factors by respondents from government institution repair workshops (Table 6). The result clearly shows that respondents from

each category of automobile repair workshop ranked the accident causing factors differently.

Table 6: Ranking of the accident causing factors by respondents from government institutions automobile repair workshops



Lack of experience 3.66 2

Monotony (constant exposure to a particular job) 3.34 3

Improper handling of tools and equipment 3.33 4Attitude of management and actions towards safety 3.33 5

Workers operating environment 3.33 6

Natural causes 3.33 7Use of faulty tools and equipment 3.01 8

Improper handling and storage of flammables, explosives and combustibles 3.00 9

Workers fatigue and boredom 2.99 10

Inadequate working environment 2.99 11Workers physical condition 2.97 12

Lack of job satisfaction by workers 2.33 13


6/10


3.3. Most violated safety regulations

In every working sector, especially where workers are exposed to potential accident causing factors, safety regulations are

normally put in place to prevent or reduce the occurrence of accidents. These regulations are enhanced by supervisors of

workshops and could result in dismal of employees if they flout some of these regulations especially in developing countries. Thestudy shows that most respondents (52.5%) mentioned that they observed safety measures at automobile repair workshops, 6.4%

said they do not observe any safety measures whiles 41.1% stated that they sometimes observed safety measures.

Respondents were requested to do a self-assessment of the violation of safety rule factors in their various workshops. These ruleswere obtained from literature as the commonest safety regulations in automobile repair workshops. The self assessment ratings

used were 1 Strongly fits me (SFM), 2 Moderately fits me (MFM), 3 Fits me (FM) and 4- Does not fit me (DFM). The study

indicated that the most violated safety regulations were ranked between mean of 4.00 to 1.35. This implies that self assessment byrespondents were from does not fit me (mean = 4) to moderately fitted me (1.35). ANOVA analysis shows that significant

differences (p 0.05) existed between mostly violated safety regulations between the three repair workshops sampled. This

implies that safety regulations violated within these workshops differ from each workshop.

Table 7: Most violated safety regulations

Most violated safety regulations Category of repair

workshops

(Mean responses)

A B C

Lack of first aid box or attendant 1.46 3.02 1.99Failure to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) 1.35 2.80 2.36

Lack of hydraulic cranes for lifting engines 2.99 2.60 2.67

Poor general site conditions 2.58 3.70 4.00Improper handling and storage of inflammable explosives and combustibles 2.12 4.00 3.34

Absence or inadequate fencing of site perimeter 2.41 4.00 4.00

Use of wedges to prevent the rolling of tires when working on vehicles 3.39 2.45 2.66Use of axle stands when working underneath a vehicle 3.25 2.80 2.33

Smoking when working on a vehicle 2.86 4.00 4.00

There is fire extinguisher in the shop area in case of emergency 3.19 3.60 1.66


Category B represents international automobile repair workshops

Category C represents government institutions automobile repair workshops

The results showed that the use of wedges to prevent rolling of tires when working on vehicles (mean = 3.39), use of axle

stands when working underneath a vehicle (mean = 3.25) and fire extinguisher in the shop area in case of emergency (mean =3.19) were the first three safety regulations that did not fit them (i.e. safety regulations local mechanics always adhere to) (Table

7). Similar study carried out in Kumasi, Ghana shows that only 7 % of the workshops possessed fire extinguishers. This result was

in line with result from this study that most of the local automobile repair workshops lack fire extinguishers. It was however,observed that some of the fire extinguishers were found to be empty making these workshops susceptible to fire hazards and

property loss in case of fire outbreak. The strongly fitted safety regulation was failure to wear personal protective equipment

(PPE) (mean = 1.35) (Table 8). This implies that most local mechanics violate the rule of wearing safety personal protective

equipment when working. This is because most of the local mechanics were of the opinion that protective equipment must be

provided by their masters or owners of the workshops.

Table 8: Ranking of the most violated safety regulation by local mechanics

Most violated safety regulations Mean RankingThe use of wedges to prevent rolling when working on vehicle 3.39 1

Use of axle stands when working underneath a vehicle 3.25 3There is fire extinguisher in the shop area in case of emergency 3.19 2

Use of hydraulic crane for lifting engine 2.99 4

Smoking when working on a vehicle 2.86 5

Poor general site conditions 2.58 6

Absence or inadequate fencing of site perimeter 2.41 7Improper handling and storage of inflammable explosives and combustibles 2.12 8

Lack of first aid box or attendant 1.46 9

Failure to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) 1.35 10


7/10


According to respondents from international automobile companies, improper handling and storage of inflammable explosives

and combustible (mean = 4.00), absence or inadequate fencing of site perimeter (mean = 4.00) and smoking when working on

a vehicle (mean = 4.00) were ranked as the first three safety regulations which does not fit their workshops (Table 9). This

implies that these safety regulations are not violated but properly adhered to. Nevertheless, using wedges to prevent rolling of tires

when working on the vehicle (mean = 2.45) was the most safety regulation which moderately fit the international automobilecompany workshops. This means that it is not always that wedges are used when mechanics are working on a vehicle.

Table 9: Ranking of the most violated safety regulation by respondents from international automobile companies

Most violated safety regulations Mean Ranking

Improper handling and storage of inflammable explosives and combustible 4.00 1Absence or inadequate fencing of site perimeter 4.00 2

Smoking when working on a vehicle 4.00 3


There is fire extinguisher in the shop area in case of emergency 3.60 5

Lack of first aid box or attendant 3.02 6Failure to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) 2.80 7

Use of jackstands when working underneath a vehicle 2.80 8

Use of hydrulic crane for lifting engine 2.60 9

Use of wedges to prevent rolling of tires when working on vehicle 2.45 10

The study indicated that poor general site conditions, absence or inadequate fencing of site perimeter and smoking when

working on a vehicle with a mean of 4.00 for all does not fit government institution workshops (Table 10). These safety

regulations were the ones that respondents from government institution workshops adhered to. Nonetheless, lack of fire

extinguishers and first aid boxes were the commonest safety regulations mostly violated at the government institution automobile

repair workshops.

Table 10: Ranking of the most violated safety regulation by respondents from government institutions workshops

Safety violated safety regulations Mean Ranking


Absence or inadequate fencing of site perimeter 4.00 2Smoking when working on a vehicle 4.00 3

Improper handling and storage of inflammable explosives and combustibles 3.34 4

Use of hydraulic crane for lifting engine 2.67 5

Use of wedges to prevent rolling of tires when working on vehicle 2.66 6

Failure to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) 2.36 7Use of axle stands when working underneath a vehicle 2.33 8

Lack of first aid box or attendant 1.99 9

There is fire extinguisher in the shop area in case of emergency 1.66 10

3.4 Accident prevention factors

Prevention of accidents in institution requires knowledge concerning accident causing factors. This knowledge is normallyacquired through orientation and training of employees (or workers) exposed to such accidents. This study shows that only 40% of

the respondents had orientation and training on accident prevention at the various automobile repair workshops considered.

According to the respondents, they had training on different aspects of accident prevention. They included personal and workshop

safety (56%), fire outbreak prevention and first aid (20%), use of appropriate tools and equipment (24%). The self assessment

concerning accident prevention factors was carried out using a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2= Disagree,3=Indifferent, 4= Agree and 5 = Strongly Agree). The respondents were requested to rate their degree of agreement against each of

the accident prevention measures from literature.

The study shows that accident prevention factors were ranked from 3.00 to 4.00, an indication of agreeing and strongly agreeingthat these factors could actually prevent accidents in the automobile repair workshops. The local mechanics ranked conducting of

periodic safety seminars (mean = 3.47) as the main factor to prevent accidents at their workshops (Table 11). According to Adei

et al. (2011) only 10 % of their respondents indicated that, they received annual job training from Sikkens a paint manufacturing

company, for auto body repairs and other spraying works however there were others who were motivated to attend Sikkenstraining programmes periodically because of the problems they were confronted with in their practice.

For respondents from international automobile companies, special safety instruction for particular jobs (mean = 4.00) was the

factor strongly agreed on to prevent accidents in their workshops.


8/10


Table 11: Accident prevention factors

Accident prevention factors Category of repair

workshops

(Mean responses)

A B C

Provision of safe storage of flammables, explosive and combustibles 3.33 3.00 3.66

Use of experienced or senior apprentices to enforce safety rules 3.19 3.70 3.00Encouragement of strict compliance to workshop safety rules 3.21 3.30 3.66

Conducting of periodic safety seminars 3.47 3.60 3.66Use of safety posters, safety instructional cards, warning signs etc. 3.00 3.40 3.66

Special Safety instruction for particular jobs 3.09 4.00 3.66


Category B represents international automobile repair workshopsCategory C represents government institutions automobile repair workshops

Furthermore, respondents from government institution workshops agreed that all the accident prevention factors have equalweights in preventing accidents at their workshops with use of experienced or senior apprentices to enforce safety rules (mean =

3.00) being the least ranked. Thus respondents from all the workshops studied have agreed that these accident prevention factors

were very essential in preventing occurrence of accidents. This was confirmed by the ANOVA analysis that there was no

significant difference (p > 0.05) in the accident prevention factors for the repair workshops.

4. Discussion

The repair and maintenance of vehicles is considered one of the occupations with high potential health risks. This is because theworkers are exposed to various accident related factors such as load lifting, improper work posture, the use of hazardous chemicals

etc which could easily result into accidents if workers fail to adhere to workshop safety regulations. The results from the study

indicated that most of the respondents had basic education certificates because they were not able to further their education and

resort to learning automobile repairs through apprenticeship. This is a common practice in Ghana. However, this level of educationshould be enough for an individual to understand and adhere to safety regulations in workshops. In this study, more than 95% of

the respondents were males because automobile repair work is considered masculine job. Thus the female respondents were mostly

vehicle sprayers and electricians.

The major accident witnessed by most respondents was accidental burning of vehicles at workshops. Accidental burning of

vehicles at automobile repair workshops could come from many sources. According to some respondents, poor electrical network

(or wiring) in vehicles is the commonest cause of vehicular fires. The results indicated that local mechanics ranked workersphysical condition as the main cause of accident in their workshops. Local automobile repair workers need some amount of

strength to carry out their activities because most of the works are done manually since they lack most mechanical facilities in theirworkshop. Hence mechanics believe the absence of these facilities is the cause of most accidents in their workshops. According to

Vyas et al., (2011) strenuous postures, physically demanding task situations and manual material handling jobs possibly lead to

pain, muscular tiredness and fatigue amongst automobile repair workers and increased their risk of occupational accidents leadingto injury11). The international automobile companies have standard workshops with modern equipment for easy diagnosis of faults.According to them, the use of faulty tools and equipment and workers operating environment were ranked as the topmost accident

risk factors in their workshops. This could be true since tools are designed such that they are used for a specific task. Studies

showed that improperly designed tools were associated with occupational accidental and hence injury (Mital, 1998; Goldenhar et

al., 2003). Furthermore, most automobile repair workshops in Ghana are noisy especially where there is a host of them. A studyby Fogleman et al. (2005) showed that noisy environments might induce work related injuries by causing communication barriers,

attention and concentration problems, memory impairments, stress and extreme fatigue (Foglema et al., 2005). Hot environments

gave rise to cognitive decrements that resulted in unsafe behaviors at work and thereby increased occupational injury risk andaccidents (Lombard et al.,2007). To minimize accident in automobile repair workshops, compliance to standard safety rules and

regulations is very important. Respondents from Government institution repair workshops ranked non compliance to standard

safety rules and regulation as the main cause of accidents in their workshops. This implies that if safety rules and regulations are

adhered to, occurrence of accidents would drastically reduce.In every standard automobile repair workshop, the workers are supposed to be exposed to safety rules and regulations. These

rules when followed properly would minimize accidents in the workshops. However, observation by the researchers and informal

interviews with some automobile repair workers indicated that most of them were not aware of these safety rules. Those who even

had some level of knowledge concerning occupational safety even violate a lot them especially the local mechanics. One common

occupational safety measure is the wearing of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to prevent injury to body parts in case ofaccident. Failure to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) was the key safety regulation being violated by local automobile

repair workers in Ghana. This assessment is correct since most local automobile repair workers do not wear safety protective

equipment while working. Informal interview with some of them showed that they were aware about the risk involved in not


9/10


wearing PPEs while working but intentionally refuse to wear them. In addition, some workers also learned the attitude from their

master mechanics who have not been wearing PPEs when working on vehicles. Thus the attitude becomes part of their working

life. In the study carried out by Adei et al. (2011) some of the workers did not put on gloves since they claimed to be

uncomfortable to use gloves and also gloves wearing adversely affected the beauty of the auto spraying objects. Others also did not

feel comfortable wearing PPE, especially in the dry and hot weather. In most of the local auto repair workshops, the provision ofthe protective clothing and equipment was found to be the responsibility of the individuals but not the managers or proprietors of

the workshop. Although most of the workers recognized the importance of wearing the appropriate PPE, they claimed these were

not used because of financial constraints. However, nose masks, workshop apron, goggles and safety boots were the commonsafety equipment which some of the workers used. This was also confirmed by the study carried out by Rongo (2004), that most

of the small scale workers operates in the open and did not use PPE; he therefore recommended the use of PPEs as the appropriate

measure for hazards protection.Respondents from the international automobile companies violate the safety measure of using wedges to prevent rolling of tires

when working. This could be attributed to carelessness on the part of mechanics. In the government institutions, lack of fire

extinguishers and first aid boxes were violated measures. This is not surprising since observation by the researchers indicated that

most of the workshops in the government institutions do not have fire extinguishers and first aid boxes and if available not

properly kept.Accidents could easily be prevented if workshop safety measures are in place and workers adhere to them appropriately. Most

local mechanics operating in the informal sector lack knowledge regarding best safety practices. According to them, conducting

periodic safety seminars for them will enlighten them and expose them to occupational safety regulations leading to reduction ofoccupational accidents. Respondents from international automobile companies believe that special safety instruction for particular

jobs should be organized for them to enhance their safety awareness and practice. In the study conducted in Kumasi by Adei et al.(2011), pperiodic education on safety would helped to upgrade knowledge of potential hazards of materials used in the car,

furniture and coffin spraying industry. 93% of the spraying workshops did not have someone responsible for safety; however 5.3% and 3% had their masters and senior apprentice responsible respectively. Moen and Holland, (2000) have reported effective

compliance of health and safety regulations by local artisans such as spray painters as a result of mandatory training for initial

certification and refresher training every two years, reaches a wide range of painters, regardless of previous training, union status,

or company size, rather than voluntary training through workers associations in improving self-protective behaviours. This is

because general safety training was organized for workers in these companies and they adhered to it. Automobile repairers ingovernment institution workshops were certain that adherence to all the accident prevention factors is very essential and important

in preventing occupational accidents.

5.Conclusion

Occupational safety measures are not adequately adhered to by most local mechanics in Ghana. Most of the workers in theseworkshops are illiterate and learned the job through apprenticeship. However, the researchers believed that if graduates in

automobile courses are employed to be supervisors at automobile repair workshops, they would enforce the use of PPEs which iscause of most common accidents. In addition, safety measures would be inculcated in the apprentices working under these

supervisors. Furthermore, occupational accidents could be minimized if safety seminars or training are organized for local

mechanics. These should be mandatory for initial certification and refresher training periodically by government. This strategy

may be very effective in covering wide range of local artisans regardless of previous training, union status, or company size, rather

than voluntary training through workers associations. This practice would significantly improve workers attitude in self protectionat their workshops. However, for the workers in the international automobile company workshops and government institution

workshops, safety measures are being practiced but can be enhanced through periodic seminars and training. This study could also

be extended to other local artisans in the small scale industries such as carpentry, building and construction etc. in Ghana toidentify occupational accident risk factors associated with their works and safety practices. In all, the government should also

provide adequate financial and logistical support to all enforcement agencies of OSH legislation to enable them effectively carry

out their duties.

5.1 Limitations

This study was limited to only automobile repair workshops. Classification of repair workshops was done by the researchers

using their own criteria with only small number of respondents from the international automobile companies willingly to respondto our questionnaire. In addition, the researchers were not allowed into the working shops of the international companies to

observe their safety practices which could have a significant influence on our results.

References

Adei, E., Adei, D. & Osei-Bonsu S. 2011. Assessment of Perception and Knowledge of Occupational Chemical Hazards, in theKumasi Metropolitan Spray Painting Industry, Ghana. Journal of Science and Technology, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp 83 94.


10/10


Aniekwu, N. 2007. Accidents and safety violations in the Nigerian Construction Industry. Journal of Science and Technology

(Ghana) Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 81-89

Fogleman, M., Akhrzadeh, L., Bernard, T. 2005. The relationship between outdoor thermal conditions and acute injury in an

aluminum smelter.Int J Ind ErgonVol. 35, pp. 4755

Goldenhar, L., Williams, L., Swanson, N. 2003. Modelling relationships between job stressors and injury and near-miss outcomesfor construction laborers. Work StressVol. 17, 21840.

Hunt, J., Cathy, C., Michael P, Anthony, M. 2000. Occupation-related burn injuries.J. Burn Care Rehabil,Vol. 21, pp. 35890.

ILO, International Labour Organization 2000.International Data Sheet on Occupation, Automobile Mechanics. ILO, Geneva.Leung, R. 1978. A Preliminary look into the causative factors of occupational hand injuries in Hong Kong, preliminary look into

the causative factors of occupational hand injuries in Hong Kong.Bulletin of Hong Kong Medical Association, pp. 3750.

Lombardi, D., Sorock, G., Holander, L., Mittleman, M. 2007. A case-crossover study of transient risk factors for occupationalhand trauma by gender.J Occup Environ Hyg,Vol. 41, pp. 7907

Mital, A., Pennathur, A., Kansal, A. 1998. Nonfatal occupational injuries in the United States Part III injuries to the upper

extremities.Int J Ind ErgonVol. 25, pp. 15169.

Moen, E. B. & Hollund, E. B. 2000. Exposure to organic solvents among car painters in Bergen, Norway. Annual Occupational

HygieneVol. 44; 3, pp. 185189.Rongo, L., Barten. F., Msamanga, G., Heederik, D., Dolmans, W. 2004 Occupational exposure and health problems in small-scale

industry workers in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: a situation analysis. Occup MedVol. 54, pp. 426.

Rongo, L.M.B. 2004. Can information dissemination workshops reduce allergy among small scale industry workers in DaresSalaam?African news letters on Occupational Health and SafetyVol. 14, pp. 5253.

Taha, A. Z. 2000. Knowledge and practice of preventive measures in small industries in Al-Khobar. Saudi Medical Journal. Vol.21, No. 8, pp. 740-745

Valuri, J. & Routley, V. 1994. Injury Surveillance and Prevention in the Latrobe Valley, Hazard Special Edition.Vyas, H., Das, S. & Mehta, S. 2011. Occupational Injuries in Automobile Repair Workers.Industrial HealthVol. 49, pp. 642651

World of Work Report 2012. Better jobs for a better economy / International Labour Office, International Institute for Labour

Studies. Geneva: ILO, 2012.

Biographical notes

Maxwell S. Akpleis of Ho Polytechnic, Mechanical Engineering Dept., Ho, Volta Region, Ghana.

Received November 2013Accepted November 2013Final acceptance in revised form November 2013

Documents

Accident and Safety Violation in Automobile Repair Workshops in Ghana-libre