Auditor Cites Wrong Clause for Non-conformance

How to handle a simple situation. Auditor cited the wrong clause when issuing a non-conformance. Situation is auditor asked some personnel what their "metric" or goal was. They flubbed the answer to the question. The answer was "on-time delivery." I know for a fact that they know the answer, because they are ultra concerned about meeting it. So much so that I frequently have to reassure them that "it's not a big deal" because we work with customers to expedite and de-expedite production into their facility and we have some flexibility on actual "due dates." Otherwise, they would be a wreck for not meeting the goal.

Anyway, like I said they flubbed the answer. No big deal. Auditor issued a non-conformance. But issued it against 6.2.1 - citing establishment and communication of objectives is not effective. In their evidence, they admitted that the objective was posted (i.e.; communicated) but the employee didn't know the metric. Problem as I see it is that 6.2.1 doesn't deal with knowledge of the metric, just communication. 7.3 (b) does however directly address awareness of the quality objective. So the NC should really be against that clause.

So do you appeal and ask them the throw it out as invalid against 6.2.1? Or do their work for them, and ask to change to 7.3? Thanks in advance.

 

Good day @Golfman25
By my own admission, it can be challenging for to select the "correct" clause when citing against. There are times when clauses tend to 'overlap' and, for example, when an organization is nonconforming to one of its own internal process requirements,...which is consistent with but not same as the ISO standard requirements, etc..etc...(you get the point). Yes, it sounds like they've identified the "wrong" clause, but regardless, that is not the issue here.

The issue is the auditor (from what I infer from your OP), is simply using a 'GOTCHA!' moment to write a nonconformance. If the organization's associates collectively have no understanding/awareness then there may be a concern. However, it is ridiculous to write a nonconformance for a single 'wrong' answer, if/when a single associate , when prompted can identify and speak to a given objective.

Remember, 'we' are only hearing one side of the story, but based simply on your description I am in agreement with @Andy Nichols and any appeal should not split hairs about the cited clause, but instead address the auditor's logic (and competency??).

Hope this helps.
Be well.

 

While I understand some clauses can "overlap" the issue here is clearly the wrong clause -- it's clearly a 7.3 awareness issue. Like many places, we kind of have an education/language obstacle to navigate. When you start using terms and jargon, even when translated, they still can get confused. We did better years ago when we coached, I mean trained, right before the audit. But I wanted to get away from that and see if things could just run without a lot of pre-audit prep. And for the most part that has worked. Our last auditor was great, he really worked hard to phrase and rephrase questions to get the response he knew they could give. But, it was probably harder than it should be. I am not that concerned about the finding itself, as it is a weaker area that can be beefed up.

However, I am a stickler for getting things right when I am paying, what $1500 a day or something. Especially when you're holding me to the fire. When it was brought up, I thought it was "fair" but assumed it would be documented under 7.3 awareness. Boy was I wrong.

 

Since there's evidence that the objective was communicated thru posting, the issue should not be raised against 6.2.1f. If the workers know what was posted and are ultra concerned on meeting it, I don't see why a CB auditor will raise an issue about communication or even awareness. No one would be ultra concerned on meeting "something", if they don't know this "something".

Could this be an issue of lost in translation? Did the CB auditor use a language that is alien to the workers? According to @Golfman25 , the auditor asked what the "metric" was. The workers may not be acquainted with the auditors choice of words. CB auditors should have the language skills to effectively communicate with persons at any level of an organization (See A.2.7 of ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015). The previous auditor knew this.

 

I agree. It's splitting hairs and in the big picture probably makes no difference. However, with these standards it seems like splitting hairs is the norm, rather than the exception, so I would kind of like my auditors held to the same standard.

But here is the issue. Every NC requires are root cause and corrective action. If the issue is communication, then isn't the focus on the communication methods. Maybe I need a bigger chart, pretty colors, more posting areas, a muti-media presentation, etc. If the issue is employees could not articulate an answer to the auditor's question and thus seemed to lack awareness, then the focus is on the employees and maybe additional training/competency reviews.

If I do the latter, re-train the "offending" employees, could an auditor not say that doesn't address the ineffective communication of objectives.

 

Then why does CB auditors need to tie the issue against a particular clause? Why don't CB auditors just report a NC against the standard without mentioning any clause?

I agree with @Golfman25. The statement of a NC facilitates proper identification of the cause, correction and corrective action by the audited organization. The specific requirement (exactly what the organization has committed itself to do) that the auditee failed to fulfill should be clearly identified, including the objective evidence (exactly what the organization has or hasn't done that contradicts the requirement) of non-fulfilment seen by the auditor.

It is just fortunate that someone in the audited organization is well-versed with the clauses of the standard and knows where to tie the issue against a specific requirement.

 

Agreed. It's in the eye of the beholder. This was our 6th audit under 2015 (finishing our 2nd cycle). Our original auditor retired, so we had a substitute for this one. He spoke to employees and as long as they gave him the gist of what he was asking, he was good. The new one -- all I'll say is young, inexperienced, and a PIA.