Capturing employee sign off not allowed

[dsantos24]

I just completed an ISO internal audit in Amsterdam (like I normally Do) this year I came across an electronic Quality check sheet used to allow product to ship. Issue was nowhere was there an identification of who had performed the inspections, so I wrote an NC against 8.6 Release of products and services, b) traceability to the person(s) authorizing the release.

Their response was the following "Due to the Data privacy and local laws per the Workscouncil we were not allowed to implement electronic recording of times and subsequently agreed to not include names and or initials for sign off."

Anyone ever come across this?

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Interesting question. I suspect they are referencing GPDR, but, to my knowledge, the requirement you referenced related to the identification of the individual authorizing product release is NOT a violation of GPDR.

If I were you, I would push back on their push back and ask them to CLEARLY identify the local laws that contravene the ISO 9001 requirement.

 

[dsantos24]

Thanks - yes a request of the local laws has been requested.

 

[malasuerte]

We have multiple warehouses in AMS and I have not once had that used as a reason to not log signoffs of any kind. Internal or External.

I will double check with my expert in the morning and respond.

 

[Mike S.]

Sounds like a poor excuse to me. I know there are some dumb regulations, but I cannot imagine a gov regulation making it illegal to record the name of a person approving something.

 

[Ed Panek]

If it is GDPR there are allowances to permit any data to be used as the company desires but there has to be explicit notification and explicit consent to that. As employees of the company that should be a given.

 

[ChrisM]

GDPR doesn't mean that data cannot be recorded, only that care has to be taken with recorded data

 

[Matt's Quality Handle]

Their response was the following "Due to the Data privacy and local laws per the Workscouncil we were not allowed to implement electronic recording of times and subsequently agreed to not include names and or initials for sign off."

Anyone ever come across this?

What is the "Workscouncil?" I interpret that as a labor union. In that context, their response would indicate that there's a law that prohibited recording of the actual time (strange, but ok I guess?). The union then parlayed that into an agreement not to record names or initials. If my interpretation is correct, it's an issue between the union and the management, not a law.

 

[dsantos24]

Matt, you are correct it seems in AMS they are not allowed to capture employee work times, the issue is the system used for tracking ties the signoff to the time worked. Management then decide not to track any signoffs. Any ideas on how using a electronic system to comply with section 8.6 of the standard?

 

[Tidge]

Matt, you are correct it seems in AMS they are not allowed to capture employee work times, the issue is the system used for tracking ties the signoff to the time worked. Management then decide not to track any signoffs. Any ideas on how using a electronic system to comply with section 8.6 of the standard?

Is it the periods of time worked that is considered private? It seems absurd to not be allowed to document that someone actually attested to doing assigned work at a specific time. In the USA, we'd consider this a field that was ripe for "now show" jobs. If no one is signing off on the release of materials, how would anyone know that there was an authorization, or that it was made by a qualified individual.