20 management or their employer did not have any mechanisms to warn workers about possible hazards in the workplace. In this case, the survey participants understood mechanisms such as having different alarm levels, a security officer, alarms, and signages for dangerous chemicals. Interestingly, 50% of the respondents were informed that they have the right to refuse work (without any sanctions or harassment from the employers) in cases where workers do not feel safe or think there is an imminent danger to them and others in the workplace. One of the respondents did claim that refusing work in dangerous situations was punished with a three-day suspension. Regarding the question of incidents where even with sufficient mechanisms to warn the company of present dangers yet being forced to report to work anyway, 67.7% answered in the negative, while 32.3% in the positive. Figure 11: Awareness of the Right to Refuse Work In addition, only a quarter of the survey participants confirmed a case where they had informed their company or DOLE of hazards or risks to their lives or health in the workplace. Likewise, 83.9% of respondents expressed that they were not consulted or included by company management in discussions regarding the organization, planning, implementation, monitoring, regular reporting to DOLE, and evaluation of OSH plans. Likewise, many respondents expressed the lack of a consistent and objective process for selecting workers for the consultations. Cases range from workers being simply appointed by supervisors, management, and employers, restrictions to only fore[persons] or plant managers, to being determined based on job performance and track record, as well as through committee decisions.