Assessing occupational safety and health hazards at workplaces in Uganda : a case of four engineering materials testing laboratories

Abstract

Workplaces in Uganda are mandated to satisfy the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), 2006 regarding the Occupational Safety and Health of workers. Despite of the above, many workplaces in Uganda including Engineering Materials Testing Laboratories have continued not to satisfy the above requirements. Although different strategies to manage OSH risks have been devised and several entities like Safety committees and Ministry of Gender Labour and Social OSH in engineering materials testing laboratories has remained a challenge; thereby exposing staff and visitors to the laboratories to serious OSH hazards including physical injuries and long-term health risks like cancer. It is these compliance gaps that this study is set to examine, using the case of Engineering Materials Laboratory EML), Central Materials Laboratory (CML), Geotechnical Foundation Services Ltd (GFS) and Geotechnical Engineering and Technology Laboratory Ltd (GET). The study used both quantitative and qualitative research designs. Quantitative data collection was supported by the use of questionnaires with closed ended questions administered to 60 respondents and then qualitative data, by use of an interview guide. The study findings indicate that for all laboratories, risks due to chemical hazards ranked highest, followed by risks due to accident hazards. Risks due to physical hazards ranked third for EML as opposed to risks due to ergonomics and psychosocial factors that ranked third for CML, GFS and GET. Risks due to ergonomics and social factors ranked lowest for EML as opposed to risks due to physical hazards factors that ranked lowest for CML, GFS and GET. Consequently, the assessment of the level of compliance to Uganda’s OSH regulatory framework indicated that GET, GFS, EML and CML were 88%, 83.4%, 79.7% and 76% compliant respectively, implying that there are still gaps in the implementation of OSHA, 2006. In conclusion, the study attributes these gaps to inadequate financial resources allocated for OSH operations and laxity in implementing OSH management strategies by the various key players among others.