Work safety climate. Comparison of selected occupational groups

three groups differ significantly in this respect. The results (cf. Table 6) also make it possible to conclude that in the global assessment of the work safety climate, there are significant differ- ences between representatives of all the occupational groups analyzed in pairs: industrial pro- duction line workers with retail workers (F = 82.14, p = 0.00), industrial production line workers with mine rescuers (F = 42.46, p = 0.00) and retail workers with mine rescuers (F = 72.00, p = 0.00). Univariate F tests were performed to find an answer to question 2. Calculations were per- formed for the assessments of the individual work safety climate dimensions for the three occupational groups together and for all the groups compared in pairs. The results (cf. Table 6) suggest that all the studied worker groups together differ significantly in terms of the following dimensions: employee participation in safety matters, safe behaviors, management’s Table 5. Correlations between the studied variables. Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Group A (Mnfc)–Production workers (N = 1,331) 1. Employee participation in safety-related matters 2. Safe behavior 0.17 3. Management engagement in health and safety 0.30 0.55 4. Modeling and enhancing safe behaviors in the organization 0.48 0.36 0.50 5. Workplace accident risk management 0.49 0.28 0.37 0.51 6. Technical facilities and ergonomics 0.43 0.37 0.50 0.49 0.47 7. Pace of work and fatigue level 0.17 0.19 0.30 0.28 0.09 0.22 8. Occupational health and safety training process 0.41 0.29 0.40 0.48 0.44 0.52 0.19

9. Atmosphere in the workplace 0.29 0.30 0.42 0.45 0.31 0.45 0.30 0.48 10. Organizational policy with regard to occupational health and safety management 0.56 0.35 0.52 0.59 0.61 0.59 0.26 0.53 0.48 Group B(Retl)–Retail workers (N = 1,431) 1. Employee participation in safety-related matters 2. Safe behavior 0.28 3. Management engagement in health and safety 0.28 0.60 4. Modeling and enhancing safe behaviors in the organization 0.49 0.40 0.52 5. Workplace accident risk management 0.41 0.21 0.25 0.47 6. Technical facilities and ergonomics 0.36 0.34 0.39 0.41 0.49 7. Pace of work and fatigue level 0.28 0.40 0.39 0.39 0.20 0.19 8. Occupational health and safety training process 0.43 0.36 0.42 0.48 0.36 0.52 0.22 9. Atmosphere in the workplace 0.32 0.41 0.51 0.47 0.19 0.34 0.37 0.53 10. Organizational policy with regard to occupational health and safety management 0.44 0.40 0.50 0.58 0.52 0.56 0.31 0.55 0.45 Group C(MnRsc)–Mine rescuers (N = 233) 1. Employee participation in safety-related matters 2. Safe behavior 0.44 3. Management engagement in health and safety 0.48 0.74 4. Modeling and enhancing safe behaviors in the organization 0.64 0.52 0.64 5. Workplace accident risk management 0.53 0.30 0.42 0.61 6. Technical facilities and ergonomics 0.62 0.53 0.61 0.68 0.58 7. Pace of work and fatigue level 0.19 0.54 0.55 0.41 0.19 0.40 8. Occupational health and safety training process 0.56 0.48 0.54 0.60 0.67 0.73 0.28

9. Atmosphere in the workplace 0.48 0.47 0.58 0.65 0.61 0.65 0.39 0.76 10. Organizational policy with regard to occupational health and safety management 0.62 0.57 0.67 0.71 0.68 0.75 0.42 0.72 0.68 p = 0.01 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243056.t005 PLOS ONE Work safety climate PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243056 December 14, 2020 9 / 19