M
Cari Spears said:
I figured that's who it was because I've never heard of any other registrar giving a n/c for this. I figure they must have been given enough grief about requiring a procedure that now they are *trying* to write it up against control of external documents. It's still crap.
I go on about that one auditor alot in various threads because her findings were so ridiculous. I think Rob Nix's reference to controlling the metric conversion chart was me - she did indeed write a n/c for document control because of charts hanging in the tool crib and we also had a "hot job list" in the production supervisor's office which was a large dry erase board that was changed almost daily - yes, she wanted that "controlled"; she also wrote a n/c because we did not calibrate our tape measures and steel rules
and a couple more that were just as silly.
I contacted our account manager and said "I'm providing corrective action for n/c numbers X,Y & Z, but I do not concur with n/c numbers A, B & C and here's why. And - by the way, this write up for a procedure for the use of your logo - when we don't use it - is crap, but I'm going to write a paragraph to make it go away because every one of your auditors is going to come in here and write this up and I don't want to argue over it during every audit.
I wish I would have thought of pointing out the use of the word "relevant" in the standard and told them to keep it unless I requested it - but like I said - I was so busy building my case against so many of her n/c's that I let that one go.
I go on about that one auditor alot in various threads because her findings were so ridiculous. I think Rob Nix's reference to controlling the metric conversion chart was me - she did indeed write a n/c for document control because of charts hanging in the tool crib and we also had a "hot job list" in the production supervisor's office which was a large dry erase board that was changed almost daily - yes, she wanted that "controlled"; she also wrote a n/c because we did not calibrate our tape measures and steel rules
I contacted our account manager and said "I'm providing corrective action for n/c numbers X,Y & Z, but I do not concur with n/c numbers A, B & C and here's why. And - by the way, this write up for a procedure for the use of your logo - when we don't use it - is crap, but I'm going to write a paragraph to make it go away because every one of your auditors is going to come in here and write this up and I don't want to argue over it during every audit.
I wish I would have thought of pointing out the use of the word "relevant" in the standard and told them to keep it unless I requested it - but like I said - I was so busy building my case against so many of her n/c's that I let that one go.
Oh, and this is the same registrar who tried to tell them that they needed a procedure for certifying gage fixtures. I went completely nuts on that one, they are a PAINT manufacturer. I could go on and on. But you make an excellent point, it is the word "relevant" that you have to understand and apply while auditing the standard. It just seems that they were writing up stuff because they did not find any Noncompliances, so they opened up their "book of useless Noncompliances" and picked one.
I have tried to get my friend to change registrars, but the owner of the company does not want to. But hey, some people have had really good luck with them. In fact, their first registration audit I thought went excellent. The auditor was different too. But he provided some very good observations, and some minors that were truly minors....
Anyway, I helped to get the system up for my friend and reviewed it before and did a Gap analysis so of course it is virtually flawless
... right....
