I agree completely with Randy; a finding of the nature you describe would be (IMHO) definitely outside the scope of a Stage 1 audit.
I would also question (politely of course) the rationale behind designating this finding as a major n/c at ANY time; the wording of the standard (ISO) is:
6.4 Work environment
The organization shall determine and manage the work environment needed to achieve conformity to
product requirements.
NOTE The term “work environment” relates to those conditions under which work is performed including physical,
environmental and other factors (such as noise, temperature, humidity, lighting or weather).
This is expanded on in the TS 16949 standard:
6.4.1 Personnel safety to achieve conformity to product requirements
Product safety and means to minimize potential risks to employees shall be addressed by the organization,
especially in the design and development process and in manufacturing process activities.
6.4.2 Cleanliness of premises
The organization shall maintain its premises in a state of order, cleanliness and repair consistent with the
product and manufacturing process needs.
Although operator safety is a prime concern for all of us, I would not (as an auditor) write up a single incident (or set of incidents, if all operators consistently use the grinder without the handle attachment) as a major nonconformance.
Neither the ISO or the TS standard prescribe WHAT is considered the correct measures for 'personal safety', this is documented in other legislation, and if it is not specifically noted in that document, (or within your own company procedures) then it cannot found to be a nonconformance, no matter what personal feelings the auditor may have.
Remember that auditors come at all levels of experience and with all kinds of backgrounds, knowledge and pre-conceived notions. Not all of them are correct.