Major Nonconformances

We are audited by our certification body on a 3 year cycle (year 1 - recertification , years 2 & 3 - surveillance). This year we will have a recertification audit which will begin a new 3 year cycle. I know that within one of the 3 year cycles, if the auditors issues a noncomformity, and then finds the same type nonconformity in a different year, it can be reissued as a major nonconformity.

My question is since we are beginning a new 3 year cycle, if the auditors were to find the same type of nonconformity that was found in the previous 3 year cycle, can it still be reissued as a major, or does this practice only apply within the same 3 year practice?

I tried to find information on this in the IATF Rules for achieving and maintaining IATF recognition book, but didn't have any luck.

 

I honestly don't know and was going to refer to the 'rule book', as well to help but I would recommend reaching out to your CB to see if they could assist you.

 

Thanks. My hope is that it is documented somewhere, and I am just missing it. If I can't find the answer, I will reach out to our CB.

 

I understand, and it isn't that I don't agree with you, but when and how major's are issued is a pretty big deal. I am surprised that this practice is not documented in the rule book. My understanding is that if a similar audit finding is found in a different year of auditing, it will not only be raised as a major, but you will also be issued another major against your corrective action process. So, you will get two majors. Again, I am not saying I disagree with the practice, but the practice sure seems like it is important enough to be documented. How else would different CB's know to follow the same process?

 

So I think it is any repeat. However, I have never seen them go back more than one audit (ie; single year) to review non-conformances and corrective actions.

 

I was able to find in the Rule Book, 5th Edition, section 5.1.1.5, this statement "In cases where the accepted corrective action plan for a minor nonconformity is found to be not effectively implemented, a new major nonconformity shall be issued against the corrective action process(see IATF 16949, section 10.2) and the previous minor conformity reissued as a major conformity."

So, I agree, it does sound like any repeat could trigger the major. However, I think the words "effectively implemented" as is mentioned in section 5.1.1.5 of the rule book could be interpreted differently by different auditors. But, I guess, that is why we are allowed to appeal if we don't agree.

 

Not an IATF person, but

I would consider,

1. Was the previous non-conformity closed by the CB after verifying the effectiveness of the corrective action?

2. Is the cause / root cause for the non-conformity appearing again similar or different from those of previous non-conformity?

The answers to the above questions may help in deciding the degree of non-conformance.