Re: On the job training (OJT)
How ever my point is all position shall be OJT or not?
Organization not provide OJT matraix for all position.
hat was the violeted clause of ISO 9001 that the auditor referred to? 6.2.2
Was this ojt matrix mentioned in a documented procedures of your QMS? No.
Was this an internal requirement of your QMS? No.
I defense already but Auditor told me " my job as issue CAR to you"
summary for this audit I received 11 CARs. eg. record without signature, Not found JD of MD etc.
I agree with the other posters that the exact wording of the NC is invaluable here in terms of interpretation, but assuming that what you've said before is correct, then I believe that your auditor is clearly focusing on
training and not
competence. It is up to your organization to determine competence requirements - training is just one way of achieving that competence, and is not the only option on the table in most organizations. By the auditor's insistence that you have to have an OJT matrix for all positions (for which the auditor is being prescriptive and crossing boundaries), their competence has to be questioned.
There is no such requirement in ISO 9001 for an OJT matrix, nor is there one that says all positions of training must be identified in a matrix.
If you haven't made an OJT matrix your requirement, that's fine and dandy, but if you don't have any other ways of showing which training was performed (assuming that training takes place), or you don't have appropriate records of any actions taken to show that employees are competent, then you might be in trouble - however you should never have to expect a CB auditor to cite the lack of an OJT matrix as a basis of nonconformity.
Only your organization knows what "appropriate records" are, so don't let the auditor prescribe to you what types of records your organization must keep - it is only their job to let you know if they are "inappropriate", and cite the specific requirement to back up the validity of their findings - and any prescriptive advice from them (like you have mentioned above) is considered "consultation" and is not allowed during CB surveillance auditing. Why? To limit the influence and leverage that CB's can have over organizations such as yours.
BTW, I was checking the related threads at bottom and noticed that you have raised
this issue here over a year ago. It sounds to me like your auditor has been taking advantage of your situation for quite some time, and if I were you, I would request a different auditor, maybe even a different CB for allowing their auditors to operate with this kind of impunity. My two cents....
Brian
