Technological University of the Philippines

College of Industrial Technology

ELECTRICAL DEPARTMENT
Manila

CASE STUDY BASIC OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY:

ANALYSIS OF THE KENTEX SLIPPER FACTORY FIRE

INCIDENT

Submitted By:
Kurt Russel T. Tongol

Submitted to:
Prof. Connie M. Aunario

2022
I. INTRODUCTION 1

II. FINDINGS
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Major Problem
Minor Problem

III. OBJECTIVES
Small caps
1.5 spacing
IV. ANALYSIS OF THE CAUSES OF THE PROBLEM

Small caps
Spacing

V. POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES AND SOLUTIONS

Small caps
spacing

VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Small caps
Spacing

VII. REFERENCES (APA FORMAT)

I. INTRODUCTION
The Philippines was first an agricultural country, with a sizable proportion of
the population residing in rural areas and relying on agricultural activities such as
fishing and farming (Statista, 2021). It resulted from several advantages of agricul-
ture over hunting and gathering (Diamond, 2003). However, over three hundred
years ago, when Spain colonized the Philippines, they brought industrialization from
Europe. This event led to the birth of a new industry: manufacturing. The Philippines
is a recently industrialized country with an economy shifting away from agriculture,
services, and industry. The manufacturing sector in the Philippines continues to be
the most important source of long-term productive employment, value addition, and
innovation. Compared to other industries, it has the most significant multiplier effect
on the economy. One of the thriving subsectors in manufacturing in the Philippines is
the footwear industry. Generally, footwear manufacturers spread throughout the
Philippines. In Valenzuela City, the local government applauds large and small enter-
prises for providing jobs to the area's needy residents. However, lying behind these
ostensibly prospering industries are disasters waiting to strike, which occurred to
Kentex Manufacturing Corporation. These tiny business manufacturing slippers were
destroyed by a fire that lasted around 7 hours and claimed the lives of 72 people on
May 13, 2015. The fire was ranked the third-worst in the Philippines(del Castillo,
2017).

Manufacturing is said to as the economy's motor. Numerous services exist

due to manufacturing, and multiple service employment will vanish if manufacturing
is eliminated. (BOI, 2017). Numerous Filipinos worked in industries, prompting then-
President Corazon Aquino to sign E.O. No. 307 in 1987, creating the Occupational
Safety and Health Center (OSHC) and the Occupational Safety and Health Stan-
dards (OSHS). Then in 2016, Republic Act No. 11058, or "An Act Strengthening
Compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Standards and Providing Penalties
for Violations Thereof," was signed by President Rodrigo Duterte. This act was cre-
ated to protect the workers by specifying the employers' duties on their employees
and the other persons working in the industries. These laws and agencies were cre-
ated and mandated to protect the workers' well-being, physical health, and safety.
However, although OSHA closely monitors and implements the Department of Labor
and Employment standards, some companies tend to deviate from the government's
implementation. One of these companies is Kentex Manufacturing Corporation.

Kentex Manufacturing Corporation was a local slipper manufacturing com-

pany owned by Mr. Ong King Guan, with Mr. Beato Ang as the CEO. Its manufactur-
ing facility is located in Valenzuela City, Philippines. Throughout its operating years,
it has been through a lot of issues. The first was when Sao Paulo Alpargatas S.A.
filed a case against Kentex Manufacturing Corporation and one of its owners Ong
King Guan because the company violated the Intellectual Property Law by putting
the brand "Havana" and imitating the designs made by the Havainas brand (Alpar-
gatas S.A. vs. Kentex & Guan, 2021). The second issue was a case that questioned
whether the company was at fault or people who inspected their factory. Because on
May 13, 2015, a fire started in a Kentex-owned factory. The blaze killed 72 people
and injured several others. Personnel from the Department of Labor's Caloocan,
Malabon, Navotas, and Valenzuela (DOLE CAMANAVA) Field Office visited Kentex's
premises as part of their regular operating procedures. The DOLE-NCR, for its part,
evaluated Kentex's compliance with the OSH standards. In contrast, the Bureau of
Fire Protection assessed the factory’s compliance with the Fire Code of the Philip-
pines. From 2010 to 2021, 505 workplace-related fire incidents were recorded in the
National Capital Region, with the most number of incidents in the year 2015 – the
year when the Kentex factory fire happened(BFP, 2021). This case study aims to an-
alyze the Kentex factory fire incident and recommend what safety measures should
be implemented to avoid or at least lessen the likelihood of it happening again in the
future based on the concepts learned from the Basic Occupational Safety and Health
subject.
II. FINDINGS
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Major Problem
The major problem was that the factory was not built and managed based on
the occupational safety standards(van der Zee, 2015), which resulted in poor mea-
sures being implemented by the company and, in turn, made the workers suffer the
consequences.

Specific Problems
1. The chemical used as a rubber emulsifier didn’t have labels and was
mishandled(IOHSD, CTUHR, EILER, & KMU, 2015).
2. No good smoke and fire alarm system were present within the factory(IOHSD,
CTUHR, EILER, & KMU, 2015).
3. No regular fire safety drills are being conducted for the factory employees (IOHSD,
CTUHR, EILER, & KMU, 2015).
4. The factory compound had no emergency fire exits(IOHSD, CTUHR, EILER, &
KMU, 2015).

III. OBJECTIVES
A. Major Objective
Provide an analysis of the Kentex Manufacturing Corporation factory fire in -
cident on how the conditions of the factory could be improved to lessen the likeli-
hood of a fire happening again in the future based on the Philippine OSH Stan-
dards and the theories learned from BET-2.

B. Specific Objectives
The specific objectives of this case study are the following:
1. Provide alternatives and solutions to reduce workplace fire hazards, whether
corporate or industrial.
2. Promote awareness and knowledge about OSH by presenting the researcher’s
analysis of the studied case.
3. Identify the obstacles to OSHS implementation.
 4. Provide a reference for students and researchers who might consider studying
OSH someday.
IV. ANALYSIS OF THE CAUSES OF THE PROBLEM
There was already a big problem within the Kentex Manufacturing Corporation
factory even before the fire started, and that is, bad working conditions for the em-
ployees. The IOHSD, CTUHR, EILER, and KMU(2015) fact-finding team found occu-
pational safety and health standards violations. Workers reported being forced to en-
dure extreme heat inside the plant during work hours due to the firm's lack of suffi-
cient ventilation. They claimed they became dissatisfied with their jobs not due to a
heavy workload but due to the heat inside the factory premises. In the investigation
done by the Bureau of Fire Protection(2018), a spatter caused by welding being
done inside the factory ignited a chemical powder called “Super Seal,” which caused
the fire. In 2014 and 2015, the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) did not issue fire per-
mits to the factory owners, and violations cited in their reports included a failure to
maintain fire extinguishers, no fire drills were conducted, no fire alarm system and
sprinkler system were implemented inside the factory. The specific problems that
have led and have contributed to worsening the fire incident are the following:

The chemical used as a rubber emulsifier didn’t have labels and was not prop -
erly stored. The chemical branded as Super Seal is a highly explosive chemical pow-
der used to emulsify rubber and stabilize it. In the investigation, it was found out from
the factory workers who survived the fire that they were not aware of the chemical’s
nature because it was not stored and appropriately labeled (IOHSD, CTUHR, EILER,
& KMU, 2015). Emmanuel Madiclom, a husband of one of the former employees of
Kentex, said that like most of the employees in the factory, his wife frequently com-
plained about the smell when she started working there and eventually got used to
it(Pante, 2015). Jobert Canino, one of the fire's survivors, said that there were no
storage for the chemicals and no labeling on the compounds (van der Ze, 2015). Ac-
cording to Leonilo Alibangbang, a welder who survived the fire, he was about to eat
lunch when a fire started from the chemical powder. Due to their lack of knowledge
and familiarity with its nature, they used water to extinguish it, but it was already hard
to control, and it only caused the fire to get bigger. When they used a fire extin-
guisher, it was already too late because the fire was already big, and black smoke
was already coming from it (SafetyCulture & BFP, 2018). The improper storage of
the chemical powder Super Seal violates Rule 1943.07 of the OSHS. The rule states
that: “(1) Significant quantities of commodities with fire hazards greater than ordinary
combustible commodities shall be separated from the main bulk by firewalls.” At the
same time, the missing labels on the chemical container violate Rule 1093.04 of the
OSHS. A rule on marking containers states that “All containers with hazardous sub-
stances shall be properly labeled. No employer shall accept any container of haz-
ardous substances for use, handling, or storage unless such containers are labeled.”
Labeling should be a part of every company’s hazard communication(HAZCOM) plan
because it serves as a communication tool for the employees to recognize the prop-
erties of a hazardous chemical.

There were no fire exits on the manufacturing compound. The factory windows
are protected by grills that are impenetrable during an emergency. According to wit-
nesses, the windows on the second floor were cracked up by the employees until
they could get outside. Workers who could flee the facility had to climb the back walls
since the delivery truck gate was locked. By forcing themselves through a gap, four
workers could escape and leap off the building (IOHSD, CTUHR, EILER, & KMU,
2015). This violated the Rule 1943.03 of the OSHS, which states: “(1) At least two
exits shall be provided in every floor and basement of every workplace capable of
clearing the work area in five (5) minutes,” and “(6) On every floor, except the ground
floor, one of the exits shall lead to an inside stairway or a smokeproof tower, while
the other exits shall lead to inside stairways, smoke-proof towers or horizontal exits.”

There was no proper smoke and fire alarm system present within the factory.
The survivors noted that even after the ground floor was entirely consumed by
smoke, assembly-line employees and office staff on the second story continued to
work. According to them, the fire spread so swiftly that they were locked inside with
no way out but through the main door. Additionally, they stated that they did not hear
a fire alarm. They also noted that personnel on the second level of the building were
stuck since they could not pass through the door due to the intense fire emanating
from the building's entrance(IOHSD, CTUHR, EILER, & KMU, 2015). As a part of an
effective safety program, a good smoke and fire alarm system must be implemented
by the company’s safety committee. This is a violation of Rule 1948.01 of the OSHS.
Rule 1948.01 says, “(1) All buildings having two or more stories in height shall be
 equipped with fire alarm system and signals of distinctive quality and pitch audible to
all persons inside the building.” The management of the Kentex factory also violated
Section 10.2.6.4 of the Fire Code of the Philippines, which specified how a fire alarm
and suppression system must be integrated into an establishment.

No regular fire safety drills were conducted for the factory employees. The
survivors of the fire incident told during the investigation that employees who have
worked for Kentex for years have never witnessed a management-led fire and safety
exercise (IOHSD, CTUHR, EILER, & KMU, 2015). This is a violation of Rule 1948.03
of the OSHS, which states that “(1) Fire-exit drills shall be conducted at least twice a
year to maintain an orderly evacuation of buildings unless the local fire department
requires a higher frequency of fire drills” and of the Section 10.2.18.2 of the Philip -
pine Fire Code under Drills which says: “The employees or attendants of places or
public assembly shall be trained and drilled in the duties they are to perform in case
of fire, panic, or other related emergencies to be of greatest service in effecting the
orderly exit of occupants.”

V. ALTERNATIVES/POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
A. Removal of the petrol component of the Super Seal.
Following the control hierarchy, rubber emulsifiers cannot be eliminated or sub-
stituted because they are crucial in manufacturing rubber slippers. However, the re-
searcher proposes that its petrol component could be removed. The advantages of
removing the petrol component in the rubber emulsifier are: It could lessen the likeli-
hood of a fire happening in the factory where it is used because the flammable com-
ponent will be eliminated, second, it will not have a foul smell because the petrol
component of the synthetic rubber produces an unpleasant odor when heated, and
third, it could lessen the risk of suffocation and the risk of external and internal bodily
irritation due to the smell and fumes emitted by the synthetic rubber when heated.
While eliminating a component in the hazardous substance has advantages, it also
has disadvantages. These are: it might take time to produce a new chemical be-
cause it would require a considerable amount of research effort; second, it would be
costly for the company to venture into research since it would require data gathering,
testing, and experimentation; and third, it might affect the overall behavior of the
chemical when used in manufacturing, and different temperatures and materials or
other chemicals interact with it.

B. Storage of hazardous chemicals in a designated space or a facility.

A storage facility or a space for hazardous chemicals should be created because the
dangerous chemicals will be organized. Second, It will isolate the chemicals from
those who work at the factory if there is a spill or leakage on its packaging. Third, It
will protect the chemicals from contact with outside forces such as temperature, for-
eign liquids, and flame. On the other hand, its disadvantages are: it will be costly for
the company to build another facility; the materials will need to be transferred to the
factory when required, which might cause the person who does it to get tired whether
the transfer is done manually or with the use of an aide such as a trolley cart; and in
case a fire breaks in the storage facility, it could be dangerous because it might
cause a large fire.

C. Building of emergency exits

An adequate number of emergency exits within the factory and the factory
compound must be built. Building the exit must follow Section 10.2 Division 5, espe-
cially Subpart H clause 1 of Section 10.2.5.2 of the Fire Code of the
Philippines(2013), which defines specifications for building an emergency exit in an
establishment and where it should be placed. It will be beneficial in ensuring the
safety of the workers because it will provide an easy means of escape in case an
emergency breaks out in the factory. Second, emergency responders, especially
firefighters and rescuers, can immediately respond to the victims in a crisis because
they know that the people will come out from the fire exit. Lastly, it gives the em-
ployees peace of mind knowing that they could quickly get out of the building in an
emergency. Although it is very advantageous to build emergency exits within the
factory, it also has some disadvantages, such as it would be an additional cost to
the company’s expenses if an emergency exit were built; employees could inappro-
priately use it as an easier means of access inside and outside of the building; and
last, it could be inappropriately used as a space for storage by the employees who
don’t want to put things in their proper places of storage.
VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. CONCLUSION
Because chemicals offer a significant risk to the safety of individuals who work
with them and others who are nearby, chemical storage is critical. The forms of direct
and indirect threats that affect workers' health are frequently overlooked. Chemical
exposure can result in both short- and long-term health problems, ranging from burns
to life-long breathing problems and other biological reactions resulting in mild or even
severe injuries(Chemstore Group, 2020). Upon examining and considering the fac-
tors based on Kentex factory, its workers' profile, and the analysis of the causes of
the problem, it would be best to implement proper storage and labeling for the chemi-
cal used to emulsify rubber and other hazardous substances the factory used for
manufacturing. Even when dangerous substances are not used, they might still
present a hazard. Properly storing them could lessen the risk of causing a fire or ex-
plosion, poisoning the employees, or property and environmental damage. Labeling
them will give the factory workers and those who come in contact with the chemical
information about its nature and properties.

B. RECOMMENDATIONS
It would also be beneficial for Kentex factory and its employees if a safety
committee will be created to handle the issues with regards to occupational safety
and health and implement a safety program aligned with the company’s goals and
with consideration of the health and well-being of the employees, especially those
who work at the factory. Aside from that, the following is also recommended: Training
of the employees on hazardous chemicals handling following Rule 1093.09: Precau-
tionary Measures for Emergencies, Rule 1093.11: Spillage, Rule 1093.12: Instruction
on Health Hazard, and Rule 1093.16: Medical Aid of the Occupational Safety and
Health Standards(2017). Labeling hazardous chemicals must also be a part of the
hazard communication plan implemented by Kentex. The labels must adhere to the
first paragraph of Rule 1093.04 of the Occupational Safety, which states that haz-
ardous material containers must be appropriately labeled and not be accepted by the
employer if they are not correctly marked. It is also recommended that Kentex must
provide personal protective equipment(PPE) to those who work in the factory that
frequently uses or comes in contact with hazardous substances, as is stated in the
Rule 1081.01 clause (1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Standards(2017):
“The employer…shall at his own expense furnish his workers with protective equip-
ment for the eyes, face, hands and feet, protective shields and barriers whenever
necessary because of the hazardous nature of the process or environment, chemical
or radiological or other mechanical irritants or hazards capable of causing injury or
impairment in the function of any part of the body through absorption, inhalation or
physical contact.” In terms of preparing the employees in case of emergency, fire
drills must be conducted following Rule 1948.03 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Standards(2017), which states fire exit drills must be conducted twice a year,
it shall include evacuation of the employees, composition of a fire exit drill committee,
and establishing a company fire brigade based on the Philippine Fire Code. Finally,
the Kentex factory's safety committee must develop an evacuation plan to guarantee
that employees are organized and aware of the facility's egress points and meeting
location outside the building in the event of an emergency.
VII. REFERENCES