Any Suggestions Will Be Welcomed

[Steve Weber]

I'm pretty sure you have a hard nosed auditor that won't be satisfied with anything less than what they have told you and you may need to get the certification body involved.

I do see a slight snag by labeling the bins as "nonconforming material" as that suggests that it has already been dispositioned as scrap.

May I suggest that they be relabeled as "suspect material". The requirement for positive control or conspicuously and permanently marked starts, as Sidney pointed out, AFTER it has been dispositioned. Frequently, that determination is made by someone with the authority to declare a part is nonconforming, not just suspected as nonconforming. Have someone with the competency and authority to declare it as nonconforming and either move them to a locked area or render them unusable by destroying a prominent feature so there is no possible way for it to be used.

Our Nonconforming process is much the same. We are a build-to-print machine shop. Any part that is not to print is technically nonconforming. These parts are marked in RED or identified with a tag as to not be confused with good parts. Theses clearly identified parts are kept by the machine in case they can be used for setup of subsequent operations. At the end of the production sequence, these parts are taken to a holding area to be reviewed by authorized personnel and are identified as either REWORK or SCRAP. Scrap parts are rendered "unsuitable for use" by any means that will make the parts easily identifiable and then placed in the SCRAP Containers.

 

[qualityegghead]

I sincerely appreciate everyone's input, feedback and suggestions. I only imparted the issue I had with only a single Finding that the auditor determined was a Major requiring Containment! Because we have been using red bins, buckets and containers with "Nonconforming Material" (NOT "SCRAP") labels, stickers and signs so they were easily identified from a distance. Now that I have responded to this Finding, I'll let everyone know my approach. My first thought was to appeal the Finding entirely because the 9100:2016 Series-Clarification document states the 'control' comes after the disposition of Scrap and none of our red containers state the word "SCRAP". But I had already lost an appeal that should have been a slam dunk. So I threw it out to you good people. and quite a few of you confirmed to me that I was on the right track by coming from the verbiage standpoint. So to tamp down some of the points of argument I replaced the Nonconforming Material labels with "Suspect Material". For whatever reason she, in an email, basically came right out and said she didn't want to see the red bins on the floor. Hmmm too bad, so very sad!
We did purchased some plastic lockable containers that I labeled as NONCONFORMING MATERIAL which will only be for carrying the material over to the dumpster when the recycler arrives.
Again, my esteemed colleagues, I'm humbled! Thank you!
Godspeed!
Walt

 

[Randy]

As part of it, I'd get some of the biggest and most vibrant red bins I could find, label & mark them accordingly, take some photo's of those things in every location you can think of, send them to her with a note "YOUR "A**" IS NEVER COMING BACK!" Contact the CB saying "FIX IT OR ELSE WE MOVE OUR CERT" (telling them which other CB's you've been in contact with along with a copy of your emails asking those other CB's what the process is)...........They'll stop sucking eggs so fast they'll set records.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

We did purchased some plastic lockable containers that I labeled as NONCONFORMING MATERIAL which will only be for carrying the material over to the dumpster when the recycler arrives.

I am continuing to post on this thread for the sake of highlighting cases of AUDITORS GONE WILD. Time has come for registrants to back charge expenses incurred in fixing non existent nonconformities to the CB. That would make them become more serious about the appeal process.

Another thing, the auditor in question should be reminded that she does not have any “clients”. The CB does. She is just a conduit of assessment services, working for the CB. She demonstrates a sense of unchecked power and that is very harmful to the IAQG image.

 

[Randy]

Another thing, the auditor in question should be reminded that she does not have any “clients”. The CB does. She is just a conduit of assessment services, working for the CB. She demonstrates a sense of unchecked power and that is very harmful to the IAQG image

Yep, sho nuff. The auditor isn't supposed to be part of the equation....Independant & Objective

For whatever reason she, in an email, basically came right out and said she didn't want to see the red bins on the floor.

Seriously? Objectivity is down the pooper with that statement.... KEEP THE EMAIL!!!!!

Between 2001 & 2016 I delivered way over 200 accredited lead auditor courses in the US and a in few other countries, with multiple languages, cultures, education levels everything, (including courses in AS9100 & AS9110). In every single course, without fail, I stated, emphasized and re-emphasized that, it does not matter one single blessed bit what you the auditor want, like, desire, wish or hope for......"YOUR AUDITOR NEEDS AND WISHES DO NOT COUNT" so don't even let those words spill out of your mouth along with a couple others like "recommend, suggest, propose, and/or advise".

Secondly I probably encountered anywhere from 1500 - 2000+ professionals (Quality, Environmental, Safety, Lawyers, Consultants, and other Auditors and pointed out and reiterated the fact that the AUDITOR has absolutely no say in how the organization (in this case the CB's CLIENT) designs, functions, carries out, or makes crap happen in meeting the requirements of a particular MS as long as the basic requirements (and possibly associated other requirement) are effectively met. NOT ONE STINKING SAY IN THE MATTER..............It's binary, either they do or they don't and that's it.

Anyway, I'm done venting.........