Does ISO 9001 have anything to do with Workplace Safety?

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: Does ISO 9001 have anything to do with safety at working place?

If an AMENDMENT is proposed, there must be some reason for it.

The ISO 9001:2009 amendment is an attempt to clarify issues that some people still don't understand, after all these years. Sort of a poke-yoke, mistake-proofing effort...

The committee members are supposedly quite busy people to waste their time discussing needless rewording of the standard.

The jury is still out on that one...

I think we will keep our views to ourselves

Is there any other way?

 

[potdar]

Re: Does ISO 9001 have anything to do with safety at working place?

OK. Product safety and product requirements it is. I was told by my tutors and I believe that it should include process requirements.

I repeat here a case I had presented long time ago when I qualified as a Lead Auditor with IRCA.

We had a disaster here many years ago. A poisonous intermediate gas called Methyl isocyanate leaked from the then Union Carbide plant in the middle of the bustling city of Bhopal. It killed thousands of unsuspecting people and left many more maimed for life. It also crippled Union Carbide and continues to haunt Dow even today. There are many theories about the how and why but that is not the issue.

If an auditor goes to such a plant to audit their QMS and sees the possibility of such a leakage taking place due to whatever reasons, should he recommend certification if everything else is OK?

The gas leaking is not going to affect product quality. It does not feature in the product statutory requirements. It might just kill the operator and maybe a few thousand people along with him.

The answer I got from my tutor was NO. It should be an NC against the then 4.9g - suitable maintanance of equipment to ensure continuing process capability.

This is really on the lines of so many examples discussed here. Just for argument - and argue I did, a small leak in an automatically controlled process industry would at most kill somebody moving around. It wont affect 'continuing process capability'. Just like a missing safety guard on a machine wont. It would at most take somebody's finger away. Nor would a leak in the compressed air pipeline. It would do no harm so long as the required pressure is available at the delivery point.

We as auditors were taught to use our judgement to grade these findings and then stamp them. But all were supposed to be findings of the audit which an auditor must look for with open eyes.

Though the committee have extensively reworded and refocussed the standard in 2000, I dont think these essentials have been taken away.

Talking of boilers, I did find myself in an awkward situation few years ago. I had finished my audit of a paper mill and was preparing my notes for the closing meeting. In between a team from the local pollution control board landed for a check. They found the SPM levels in the boiler emission way too high and sealed the plant.:mg: Luckily for me, I didnt have to make any decisions as the management requested for a postponement of the closing meeting. I just postponed it till they got their plant reopened.

In this situation, I would like to know from all the votaries of PRODUCT ONLY - how many would go ahead and recommend certification there and then?

The plant being sealed by statutory authorities may not really 'enhance customer satisfaction' but then, his warehouse will take care of the deliveries and its not connected to his QMS anyway!

 

[potdar]

Re: Does ISO 9001 have anything to do with safety at working place?

Sorry Sidney. I tried hard but after a good night's sleep, couldnt keep my views to myself.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: Does ISO 9001 have anything to do with safety at working place?

If an auditor goes to such a plant to audit their QMS and sees the possibility of such a leakage taking place due to whatever reasons, should he recommend certification if everything else is OK?

The gas leaking is not going to affect product quality. It does not feature in the product statutory requirements. It might just kill the operator and maybe a few thousand people along with him.

The answer I got from my tutor was NO. It should be an NC against the then 4.9g - suitable maintanance of equipment to ensure continuing process capability.

Just because your instructor told you something, it does not mean that it is correct. You are entitled to your opinions. But one could think that people who deliberate on the standards would know a little bit more about this than you.
As Paul Simpson already said yesterday, PLEASE read the document Auditing Statutory and Regulatory requirements, developed by an ad-hoc group under the same TC 176 that writes the standard. In that document (if you read it), you will see the following text:

ISO 9001:2000 requires an organization to identify and control the statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to its products (including services). It is up to the organization how to do this within its QMS.

However, if nonconformance with other kinds of statutory requirements (e.g. health and safety, environment, etc.) is co-incidentally, detected during the audit, this fact cannot be ignored by the audits. It should be reported without delay to the auditee and, if required, to the audit client.

There is a difference between REPORTING the unsafe situation and writing an NC against a NON-APPLICABLE Standard. If you deny quality system certification to an organization due to a non-related discrepancy, such as an environmental or occupational health violation, you are violating ISO/IEC Guide 62. Your CB can be taken to court for that.

If I were auditing a site where I detected unsafe practices, I would report this to the organization, and if the situation was serious enough, I would simply leave the premises.

 

[priyal]

Re: Does ISO 9001 have anything to do with safety at working place?

At our facility during the initial audit, auditor ask warehouse associated to find some stock. Associate used forklift to get that material from 3rd rack and he didn't wear safety harness belt. Auditor ask second time to get same material, he didn't wear safety harness belt second time as well.

Auditor went to HR, ask for training report and fortunately that fellow has forklift licence but still we got minor non conformity stating that all associates are not properly trained of health and safety procedure.

So i think ISO has to do with all regulatory standard

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: Does ISO 9001 have anything to do with safety at working place?

At our facility during the initial audit, auditor ask warehouse associated to find some stock. Associate used forklift to get that material from 3rd rack and he didn't wear safety harness belt. Auditor ask second time to get same material, he didn't wear safety harness belt second time as well.

Auditor went to HR, ask for training report and fortunately that fellow has forklift licence but still we got minor non conformity stating that all associates are not properly trained of health and safety procedure.

So i think ISO has to do with all regulatory standard

What ISO? Your post reflects the prototypical auditee experience. Just because an auditor states something related to Standard s/he is auditing to, you take it as "the truth". If your post is related to an ISO 9001 audit, the auditor is w-r-o-n-g. Forklift operation is a common source of damaged products (quality related) and accidents (safety related). Your auditor write up is not supported by ANY requirement of the ISO 9001 standard. You chose(?) not to challenge.

Does it make sense for the forklift operator to wear the harness? You bet. Does ISO 9001 deal with OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH?

NO!

 

[chaosweary]

Re: Does ISO 9001 have anything to do with safety at working place?

PLEASE read the document Auditing Statutory and Regulatory requirements, developed by an ad-hoc group under the same TC 176 that writes the standard. In that document (if you read it), you will see the following text:
There is a difference between REPORTING the unsafe situation and writing an NC against a NON-APPLICABLE Standard. If you deny quality system certification to an organization due to a non-related discrepancy, such as an environmental or occupational health violation, you are violating ISO/IEC Guide 62. Your CB can be taken to court for that.
If I were auditing a site where I detected unsafe practices, I would report this to the organization, and if the situation was serious enough, I would simply leave the premises.

I agree with you and Paul. However, I see that you are speaking in the context of a CB. Not an internal auditor. From the link you graciously supplied.
"However, if nonconformance with other kinds of statutory requirements (e.g. health and safety, environment, etc.) is co-incidentally, detected during the audit, this fact cannot be ignored by the audits. It should be reported without delay to the auditee and, if required, to the audit client."
How does one report this, verballly or in the report itself? You stated that you would leave the premises for because of an unsafe condition, at some point, whether it is in an audit report or some other type of communication the reason why you left will have to be documented.
As you can tell by my history of posting it takes a lot for me to write up anything. I am just playing devils advocate here because also alot of what Potdar states was in the past, was supported by Cianfrani (considered an expert?).

 

[priyal]

Re: Does ISO 9001 have anything to do with safety at working place?

What ISO? Your post reflects the prototypical auditee experience. Just because an auditor states something related to Standard s/he is auditing to, you take it as "the truth". If your post is related to an ISO 9001 audit, the auditor is w-r-o-n-g. Forklift operation is a common source of damaged products (quality related) and accidents (safety related). Your auditor write up is not supported by ANY requirement of the ISO 9001 standard. You chose(?) not to challenge.

Does it make sense for the forklift operator to wear the harness? You bet. Does ISO 9001 deal with OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH?

NO!

No i didn't choose to challenge, as it was my first experience, first time i implemented ISO 9001:2000 and it was successful with above said minor one. They found that issue and they relate the issue with training. they stated health safety training requirement in their report with clause number and we also submitted our corrective action.

 

[ScottK]

Re: Does ISO 9001 have anything to do with safety at working place?

they stated health safety training requirement in their report with clause number and we also submitted our corrective action.

What claus did the auditor cite it under? 6.2.2?
6.2.2 a specifically says "work affecting product quality".
Not wearing a safety harness has nothing to do with product quality because product can be damaged whether or not the driver is wearning a harness.

ah well. live and learn.

 

[potdar]

Re: Does ISO 9001 have anything to do with safety at working place?

Just because your instructor told you something, it does not mean that it is correct. You are entitled to your opinions. But one could think that people who deliberate on the standards would know a little bit more about this than you.
As Paul Simpson already said yesterday, PLEASE read the document Auditing Statutory and Regulatory requirements, developed by an ad-hoc group under the same TC 176 that writes the standard. In that document (if you read it), you will see the following text:

The same document (I have read it) further states:

If auditors become aware of any deliberate legal non-compliance that could affect the image and credibility of the QMS before, during, or after the audit (including, for example, breach of antitrust law, labour law, health and safety or environmental regulations) then this should be taken into consideration and investigated further, as appropriate. Apart from the regulatory authority’s action, it is for the auditors to assess the effectiveness of the QMS in meeting customer requirements (stated or generally implied) and report this to the certification/registration body management to take appropriate actions.

Therein I find the relevance of my tutor's guidance about grading the finding and taking appropriate action. The QMS does not bother about anybody's safety. It does however bother if this lapse on safety countervenes or is deemed likely to countervene the organisations commitment to the customer (stated and unstated).

There is a difference between REPORTING the unsafe situation and writing an NC against a NON-APPLICABLE Standard. If you deny quality system certification to an organization due to a non-related discrepancy, such as an environmental or occupational health violation, you are violating ISO/IEC Guide 62. Your CB can be taken to court for that.

If I were auditing a site where I detected unsafe practices, I would report this to the organization, and if the situation was serious enough, I would simply leave the premises.

Leaving the premises. Wouldnt that amount to denial of QMS certification? And the attendant consequences thereof?