paragraph 7.5.5 Preservation of product :
"the organization shall preserve the conformity of product during internal processing and delivery to the intended destination .
This preservation shall include identification, handling , packaging ...."
what could be a non-conformance in handling other that the existence of a non qualified driver which can destroy the product during handling it ?!
what is more bad for a company a destroyed product (expensive ) or the non application of requirements 6.2.2 concerning the setermination of necessary competence ?!
I choose the more stringent requirement and i applied my non conformance on it .
Where is the ranking on requirement stringencies? Which "shall" is more critical than the other? My vote is in for the clause that pertains to cause versus effect.
Let us consider the action we expect to result from an issued nonconformance so as to avoid issuing a nonconformance to an effect rather than a cause.
Was product damaged? If so, how did that occur? The answer to that question can help the auditor decide which clause should apply.
If product was not damaged, how can 7.5.5 reasonably apply?
If prevention is a concern, 6.2.2 is meant to govern that in order to achieve 7.5.5. This is why I focused on training--especially if that uncertified person is likely to continue handling product.
At issue here is how the organization makes sure its people are properly prepared to work with product in conformance with 7.5.5. That means identifying the competencies, preparing to meet them, meeting them, evaluating how well they are met, and keeping appropriate records to show competence.
Maybe there are all sorts of these fine activities already taking place, and the only problem is this production chief not knowing his part of the competency plan. If that is the case, in my view the competency question is more directly aimed at him for not following the plan per 7.5.1 and 7.5.2.