Does ISO 9001 have anything to do with Workplace Safety?

[tyker]

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

Paul
We seem to have replied at the same time.
Fortunately we seem to be taking a consistent stance.

 

[Paul Simpson]

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

Calm down, Paul, it's nearly the weekend. and

Paul
How many times do I have to tell you?

I know I should resist, where's that ignore button?

 

[Paul Simpson]

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

Paul
We seem to have replied at the same time.
Fortunately we seem to be taking a consistent stance.

Yes, Sorry. It looks like we're ganging up on Potdar - not the case.

Re the same stance - I'm not surprised - I had a great teacher!

 

[potdar]

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

This is a different argument. If, as a CB, I refuse to certify an organisation for no good reason then I am in breach of accreditation criteria (can't remember where) as I am obliged to offer my services to anyone who wants them.

Nor do I remember. I tried a cursory of Guide 62. Couldnt locate any. If you find it please update me.

If the company is breaking the law that would be my defence that my decision not to work with a company is not unreasonable.

I can't imagine many companies taking me to court when my defence is going to reflect badly on them and possibly lead to criminal action on them by the government for breaches of health & safety law.

You need to defend if you are called upon by the court to defend. Unfortunately I have some legal background in the family. The legal system in India is also modelled on the British system. The court will simply throw out any claim against the CB for violating "accreditation criteria" as "not under jurisdiction". Just the same way you as a QMS auditor would not bother about a safety issue "not related to product".

The legal jurisdiction is normally defined within the contract with the registration body. This would be a civil matter so, in the UK at least, prison wouldn't be an issue but compensation could be awarded if the registrar or auditor acted improperly. However, no employee can be required to work in an unsafe environment and, if the auditor judged his health and safety was being put at risk, he has both the right and responsibility to avoid the risk.

The issue is not violation of the contract. The issue is relating to the violation of Guide 62 - which is neither a criminal nor a civil law. I wonder under what jurisdiction you might put it.

 

[Paul Simpson]

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

Nor do I remember. I tried a cursory of Guide 62. Couldnt locate any. If you find it please update me.



You need to defend if you are called upon by the court to defend. Unfortunately I have some legal background in the family. The legal system in India is also modelled on the British system. The court will simply throw out any claim against the CB for violating "accreditation criteria" as "not under jurisdiction". Just the same way you as a QMS auditor would not bother about a safety issue "not related to product".



The issue is not violation of the contract. The issue is relating to the violation of Guide 62 - which is neither a criminal nor a civil law. I wonder under what jurisdiction you might put it.

I am sorely tempted to say "don't bother replying to my posts" and I, in turn, will ignore yours as it appears we cannot agree on anything.

Instead I will simply say do not misquote my posts as you have done above. For the 401st time please understand.

• Any auditor has a duty to bring to the attention of a client any areas of safety that they feel needs attention
• Safety "infringements" are not reportable under ISO 9001

If you want to reply to either of these points with any new information please feel free to do so. If you have nothing new to say then it is best just to say nothing.

 

[potdar]

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

I am sorely tempted to say "don't bother replying to my posts" and I, in turn, will ignore yours as it appears we cannot agree on anything.

Instead I will simply say do not misquote my posts as you have done above. For the 401st time please understand.

• Any auditor has a duty to bring to the attention of a client any areas of safety that they feel needs attention
• Safety "infringements" are not reportable under ISO 9001

If you want to reply to either of these points with any new information please feel free to do so. If you have nothing new to say then it is best just to say nothing.

No. Nothing new. Still the same old brew. But by now I know that we agree on certain issues and disagree on some. And we are not likely to change so easily. Frankly my views hold little practical value as I dont conduct any certification audits any more.

Thanks for the lively debate. One discovery is - both of us are extremely patient guys. In this case that started bordering on stubbornness. So when you write now for the 401st time, lets close the debate.

Thanks are also due to Sidney, tyker, chaosweary, discordian and all other participants. I dont know how many pressed their ignore button on me. Not everyone would be as patient as you. But they have contributed a range of views and viewpoints.

This thread has thrown up many loose ends. Lots of things to munch over and maybe brought back to the cove for discussion. But this thread is not the place to discuss them.

Enjoy the long weekend.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: The fat lady did not sing yet

I believe everyone seems to have agreed (at least not contested) that the various standards are not watertight compartments in an organisation and that it has to be looked at in a holistic manner by everybody -

Actually, the STANDARDS do have a narrow focus of application. By design, they propose management models to the management system subsets, such as QMS, EMS, OHSMS, etc. The organization, NOT THE STANDARD, NOT THE AUDITOR, has to manage the enterprise in a comprehensive, holistic manner.

 

[potdar]

Re: The fat lady did not sing yet

Actually, the STANDARDS do have a narrow focus of application. By design, they propose management models to the management system subsets, such as QMS, EMS, OHSMS, etc. The organization, NOT THE STANDARD, NOT THE AUDITOR, has to manage the enterprise in a comprehensive, holistic manner.

Possibly. The fat lady has retired from singing.

 

[aceoface]

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

Hi,

I am working as a Safety Supervisor for one of the International Airports. Recently we had a Quality Audit from our QA & Strategy Dept, where we were asked to concentrate on ISO 9001 and how it affects our department (which is Safety, Security & Environment).

Can anyone tell me how ISO 9001 is related to our work??!!

Regards,

 

[Ka Pilo]

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

It's seem like companies only care about the quality of product but just don't pay much attention to the safety of working environment. Can this issue be covered under ISO 9001:2000 clause 6.4?

Do ISO 14001:2004 (environmental), OHSAS 18001:2007 (occupational health & safety) and ISO/IEC 27000:2005 (information system security) directly address customer satisfaction? Not either.