Text in English / The study, which considers that the construction industry is a high risk one due to the physical work demand and nature of the working environment, was conducted to develop practical guidelines for workers and employers that promote occupational health and safety (OHS) in the construction industry in Namibia. The study, conducted at 13 study sites in Windhoek, Namibia, used a quantitative descriptive study method to gather data regarding the OHS status of the construction industry. Data was collected from the 13 study sites using a site interviewer-led questionnaire for 549 construction workers. In addition, both a site inspection checklist and document review checklist were used to collect the data from ten construction sites. A review of documents concerning occupational accidents, diseases and injuries encountered at construction sites that were held by the Ministry of Labour, Industrial relations and Employment creation for the five-year period from April 2011 to March 2016 was carried out. Data was analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 23. The study findings show that most of the workers at the study sites were young and male, with most participants lacking awareness of OHS issues, which may hinder accidents and injuries prevention. It also emerged that occupational hazards are prevalent at the study sites and yet there were poor mechanisms for hazard prevention or mitigation measures. The study notes that there was a high rate of occupational accidents and injuries, as well as a few incidences of health hazards, as indicated by few participants, although there was no documented occupational disease. It is also noted that most study sites do not comply with OHS legislations, such as having OHS policies that indicate the employer’s commitment towards OHS, which placed workers at risk of hazard exposure, occupational accidents, injuries and diseases. Practical guidelines to promote OHS in the construction industry of Windhoek, Namibia are developed as the primary output of this project. / Health Studies / D. Litt. et Phil. (Health Studies)

No description available.

La préservation de la santé et de la sécurité du travailleur est aujourd'hui dans le langage de la gestion, du management et progressivement des juristes, liée au concept de « responsabilité sociale d’entreprise ». Les employeurs doivent en tenir compte dans leurs décisions pour tenter de s'assurer l’adhésion des salariés et contribuer à la préservation d’un environnement plus sain. Ces idées, dont les contours manquent parfois de précision, intègrent progressivement le droit positif. Ainsi, à l’aune de son obligation de sécurité de résultat, dont la violation présente le caractère de faute inexcusable, il incombe à l’employeur, en cas de lien du préjudice subi avec le travail, une réparation allant jusqu’à s’étendre aux préjudices jadis exclus par le livre IV du Code de la sécurité sociale. Il est possible de considérer qu'il s'agit d'une rupture de l’équilibre du régime accordant le bénéfice d’une présomption d’imputabilité au salarié, en contrepartie d’une réparation uniquement forfaitaire, avec éventuellement un complément en cas de faute inexcusable. On peut se demander si au-delà des contraintes normatives qui l’y obligent, l’employeur ne doit adopter un «management de la santé » destinée à assurer le fonctionnement immédiat de l'entreprise et à terme la pérennité de son capital humain. / To save health and safety at work is today, in the language of the management and step-by-step of lawyers, bound with the notion of “corporate social responsibility”. Beyond legal pressures progressively integrated in the positive law, employers must take care about them in their decisions to have the adhesion of employees and to contribute to the conservation of a healthy environment. Goals are as those including by the “triple bottom line” of Elkington (economic, social and legal), as those corresponding to the logic via media and politicians with the management of the appearance of the firm. In addition, it’s possible to ask you: how long can we continue to have a balance about responsibility and reparation around health and safety? How firms can succeed with taking care about interests of actual and future employees too? The answer ask you to study how France choose a “corporate social responsibility” with an important place for the State in opposition of what could be prefered by some authors. But the problem is that this system can be excessively interpreted by Judges. They often accept the responsibility of the employer in cases while it’s not sure that he (or the activity of the firm) created the risk. In addition, the French “corporate social responsibility” can’t be adapted enough and quickly as it’s necessary concerning health and safety at work. That is why, you must see if other ways can been more satisfying. They can be with the same persons (employers and employees or their representatives) or with others stakeholders. It don’t mean that the State can’t be have a role in the “corporate social responsibility” about health and safety at work. But it’s important to see if it can be interesting to give firms possibilities to act voluntarily and ask you if we have to change the repartition of powers concerning this questions in France. An independent control of results must be planned.