IATF 16949 - Requirements for Personnel Safety?

[lmamao]

In the ISO/TS standard it had the clause 6.4.1 for personnel safety, but now searching for something similar to that clause in the new IATF 16949 I didn't find one. Now I did an internal audit where they found chemicals without the Hazcom labels a safety requirement... So I'm finding hard to put it against a IATF clause, I was thinking of ISO 9001 4.2 b) since it talks about requirements of the interested parties.

Any thoughts?

 

[Stijloor]

In the ISO/TS standard it had the clause 6.4.1 for personnel safety, but now searching for something similar to that clause in the new IATF 16949 I didn't find one. Now I did an internal audit where they found chemicals without the Hazcom labels a safety requirement... So I'm finding hard to put it against a IATF clause, I was thinking of ISO 9001 4.2 b) since it talks about requirements of the interested parties.

Any thoughts?

Look in ISO 9001:2015 Clause 7.1.4 "Environment for the operation of processes" and a clarifying NOTE in IATF 16949:2016 on Page 22. Notes do not contain requirements, but this note may help you.

Also, look at IATF 16949:2016 in Clause 8.5.1.2 "Standardised work - operator instructions and visual standards." The last sentence includes a reference to operator safety requirements.

 

[AndyN]

In the ISO/TS standard it had the clause 6.4.1 for personnel safety, but now searching for something similar to that clause in the new IATF 16949 I didn't find one. Now I did an internal audit where they found chemicals without the Hazcom labels a safety requirement... So I'm finding hard to put it against a IATF clause, I was thinking of ISO 9001 4.2 b) since it talks about requirements of the interested parties.

Any thoughts?

The Context of the Organization has nothing to do with labeling of hazardous materials.

 

[lmamao]

4.2 is about understanding the needs and expectations of interested parties and since the personnel and the government are interested parties. the compliance of safety standards is an expectation of both parties.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

The fact that the personnel safety requirements which were part of the ISO/TS 16949 standard are not required in the IATF 16949 should tell you something. They recognized it was not supposed to be part of a QMS standard. Since the IATF 16949 document is a supplementation to ISO 9001:2015, look in section 0.4 of 9001, where it states that the standard is not involved with occupational health & safety requirements.

The issue you are concerned with is outside of the scope of the QMS. Nevertheless, it is a reportable item. Auditors must react and report issues outside the scope of their audits when the situation warrants it. Especially when you are performing an internal audit. Everyone, at all times should report potential safety violations, undetected hazards, etc...

4.2 is about understanding the needs and expectations of interested parties and since the personnel and the government are interested parties. the compliance of safety standards is an expectation of both parties.

Read it carefully, because it clearly states "that are relevant to the quality management system..."

 

[AndyN]

4.2 is about understanding the needs and expectations of interested parties and since the personnel and the government are interested parties. the compliance of safety standards is an expectation of both parties.

True, however, we mustn't overlook that the QMS is about PRODUCT and the resulting satisfaction of the customer. Not safety in general terms.

 

[lmamao]

So instead of writing them as NC all issues regarding personnel safety should be written as an opportunity of improvement?

 

[lmamao]

I'm wondering now how external audits will be looking at this issues and if they are going to be issuing NC's

 

[Sidney Vianna]

External auditors MUST NOT audit outside of the scope of their audits. They might even report a (perceived) unsafe situation to your company, but NEVER as nonconformity against IATF 16949, since there are NO REQUIREMENTS in the standard for that.

 

[AndyN]

So instead of writing them as NC all issues regarding personnel safety should be written as an opportunity of improvement?

I'd anticipate that this is NOT within the scope of your quality audit. Are you a competent safety auditor? All you have is a duty of care to raise the awareness of this situation with the Safety office and have them deal with it. It's the right thing to do, not to use an internal quality audit to step on other's toes...