Discrimination and Discriminatory Harassment Policy

[Wes Bucey]

There is no mission creep or any creep here. You perhaps do not know much about statutory and regulatory requirements in India.
Its from a customer and as a comment. Its up to the organization to rise to it to understand and act upon. OP seeks guidance

The mission creep is that the auditor did not cite the specific regulation - SHOW ME THE SHALL is always pertinent. If the auditor had done so, the OP would not have been confused and concerned enough to post in the first place.

 

[somashekar]

The mission creep is that the auditor did not cite the specific regulation - SHOW ME THE SHALL is always pertinent. If the auditor had done so, the OP would not have been confused and concerned enough to post in the first place.

The OP's oversea's buyer passed a comment and this has prompted a simple question here seeking guidance. If 'Show me the shall' is to be used for a customer's comment, we are guiding someone to lose a customer.
Lets together help the OP sir.
With red glasses all things look red.

 

[Stijloor]

The OP's oversea's buyer passed a comment and this has prompted a simple question here seeking guidance. If 'Show me the shall' is to be used for a customer's comment, we are guiding someone to lose a customer.
Lets together help the OP sir.
With red glasses all things look red.

Aptly stated!!

OP's look for answers not being lectured to!!

 

[Wes Bucey]

The OP's oversea's buyer passed a comment and this has prompted a simple question here seeking guidance. If 'Show me the shall' is to be used for a customer's comment, we are guiding someone to lose a customer.
Lets together help the OP sir.
With red glasses all things look red.

Aptly stated!!

OP's look for answers not being lectured to!!

Why do you continue the concept of FEAR by condoning the supplier being too afraid to ask a simple question of Why? [is the comment made.] If the customer's auditor or third party auditor has a comment, he has no business being cryptic, forcing a supplier to seek third party (UNAFFILIATED) guidance.

Deming said REMOVE FEAR! and yet you folks are telling the supplier he SHOULD be afraid to ask questions on the spot (closing interview, anyone?) and not let his fear fester.

I simply can't understand your namby pamby acquiescence that suppliers should be afraid to raise a question. The question doesn't have to be confrontational, but it should be asked BEFORE the auditor leaves the building!

 

[Dr. L. Ramakrishnan]

Hi

It appears that the assessment carried out was a part of Supplier Sustainability assessment, which includes management systems too. Many large organizations require their suppliers to meet Sustainability requirements, for example EICC requirements or Responsible Supply Chain requirements, which include Labour and governance issues. Discrimination and Harassment are part of this assessment. Please see EICC Code of Conduct (http://www.eicc.info/documents/EICCCodeofConductEnglish.pdf) , which will probably explain the reason for the question.

With kind regards,

Ramakrishnan

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Recently an overseas buyer visited for assessment of the QMS/EMS activities. One of the comments he has issued: The Organisation has no ' Discrimination and Discriminatory harassment Policy".
We are confused as to understand under which requirements of ISO 9001:2008 / ISO 14001:2004 this is addressed?
Can somebody guide us.

As mentioned already by others, the customer citation is NOT supported by any ISO 9001 nor ISO 14001 requirements. But it could have come from other sources such as the SA8000 document and other Supplier Codes of Conduct documents.

Many organizations are subscribers of Ethical Supply Chains and subject their suppliers to many expectations, in terms of labor relations, anti-bribery conduct, safe work environment, etc...

Either you are misinformed about the scope of the audit or the buyer sprung questions beyond the agreed upon scope of the audit.

 

[somashekar]

Why do you continue the concept of FEAR by condoning the supplier being too afraid to ask a simple question of Why? [is the comment made.] If the customer's auditor or third party auditor has a comment, he has no business being cryptic, forcing a supplier to seek third party (UNAFFILIATED) guidance.

Deming said REMOVE FEAR! and yet you folks are telling the supplier he SHOULD be afraid to ask questions on the spot (closing interview, anyone?) and not let his fear fester.

I simply can't understand your namby pamby acquiescence that suppliers should be afraid to raise a question. The question doesn't have to be confrontational, but it should be asked BEFORE the auditor leaves the building!

Again there seems to be a huge assumption made with the new words like FEAR, SHOULD be afraid, cryptic, forcing, namby pamby acquiescence.
The event is past and so there is no way we can recommend or guide the OP to ask the 'Why is the comment made' question now.
Yes, he could still ask the oversea's buyer about why the comment was made. No harm to also dig in and find out internally what one can do about something like the comment that was made, and the OP just made that here. I also believe he has got what he wanted. Hope the OP comes back.

I simply can't understand your namby pamby acquiescence that suppliers should be afraid to raise a question.

Assumptions again and a huge one. None can understand simply when one fails to get into the shoe of the other, and is firm on a stance.

 

[krishkaar]

Thanks for the many responses.
Our organisation is certified to ISO 9001 and ISO 14001.

The auditor was designated by a prospective buyer and we were never informed about the specific requirements by this customer in any previous communications. However, our organisation has taken up the issue with the customer and sought clarification.

 

[PaulJSmith]

I find myself agreeing with Wes on this. While admittedly not knowing much of Indian law, the tone of the other responses seemed to me to be perpetuating the notion of acquiescing to whatever the auditor requested without question. I don't think Wes was trying to run anyone off, but was rather imparting the idea that we don't necessarily have to just accept everything thrown our way, especially if something seems amiss. Isn't that, after all, a big part of what we do as quality professionals; determine conformity to requirements? As it turns out, that's exactly what the OP did; request clarification so his organization could make that determination.

Many posts here are regarding issues from the past. While they may be hindsight for those posing and answering the question, the posts remain as guidance for those who may seek similar answers in the future.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

It appears, then, the OP's organization is in breach of the ISO dictum to adhere to all applicable governmental and regulatory body requirements.

As if it were necessary for a voluntary standard to remind users: OBEY THE LAW!!!

I am confused about the "ISO dictum" you are referring to. There is an ISO 9001 requirement that organizations must ensure that the PRODUCT satisfies legal requirements.

Anti-discrimination laws (if they exist in the geographical location of the organization) are NOT product related.