D
The problem Lucinda is that the organization HAS objective evidence of compliance to 6.4 PROVIDED they can show that environmental conditions have not caused nonconforming product. Let's look at your example. First, you added additional information that was not in your earlier post, but that is okay.
Does having sweat on the fabric result in nonconforming product? If so, you can cite against 6.4. I have worked in Reynosa, Mexico building houses. It was 105 degrees and, being a northern boy, it nearly killed me. The locals thought it was funny! One even wore a jacket the next day because he was "chilly" at 97. Is 100 degree too hot? By whose standard. Likewise, I prefer the office temp to be about 60 year round. If I set the thermostat there, others would be saying it was too cold to work. Set it at 80 and I complain. At 70 no one is happy. Does this mean we can't meet 6.4? As far as appropriately managing, who is to say they aren’t? Can we write a noncompliance if the employees don’t make $65 per hour, US? What if the temperature was only 98 degrees? What is the ISO 9001:2000 mandated temperature?
Now, we have nonconforming product (I think). It makes no difference if the rebeading is from work environment, or laziness, or defective beads, there is nonconforming product. But, if the work environment results in the nonconforming product, then you could cite 6.4. Are we to be doctors and able to determine why the ladies are faint? (Actually it makes no difference why they are faint. If their medical condition results in nonconforming product, you could still cite 6.4)
Yes, this is true. However, if I do a root cause analysis and state that the rebeading was due to the beads were packaged by the vendor wrong (even if this isn't true), what right does anyone else have to say: "No it was because of the work environment!" If I say I have no problems with product due to the work environment. How can an auditor tell me otherwise?
In your examples, the auditor could see (one of the methods of obtaining objective evidence - observation) that the work environment has in deed created nonconforming product. In this case, a nonconformance could be written against 6.4. However, this leads me back to my original statement (although I could have stated it better). The auditor must be able to “prove” the nonconformance. This is done by showing what the standard says and what the objective evidence is that shows the “shall” was not met. In the case of 6.4 the burden of proof is the AUDITOR must what objective evidence proves the “shall” was unfulfilled. If the standard requires a procedure and the auditee cannot produce one, the objective evidence is the auditee could not produce the required procedure. If the requirement is that the work environment shall not result in nonconforming product, the objective evidence would be nonconforming product that was caused by the work environment. The proof is still on the auditor.
Would you still say that the company is managing that 100 degree sweat shop appropriately if the seamstresses are sweating all over the fabric?
Or they have to rebead 10percent of their dresses because the ladies are faint with dehydration
Responsibility is not on auditor to prove the company doesn't do something, it is on the company to prove it does!
In your examples, the auditor could see (one of the methods of obtaining objective evidence - observation) that the work environment has in deed created nonconforming product. In this case, a nonconformance could be written against 6.4. However, this leads me back to my original statement (although I could have stated it better). The auditor must be able to “prove” the nonconformance. This is done by showing what the standard says and what the objective evidence is that shows the “shall” was not met. In the case of 6.4 the burden of proof is the AUDITOR must what objective evidence proves the “shall” was unfulfilled. If the standard requires a procedure and the auditee cannot produce one, the objective evidence is the auditee could not produce the required procedure. If the requirement is that the work environment shall not result in nonconforming product, the objective evidence would be nonconforming product that was caused by the work environment. The proof is still on the auditor.