Interesting Discussion Legal compliance as part of ISO 45001 accredited certification. Major OSHA penalties in the USA.

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
Not only certification bodies, but also accreditation bodies. If we had a transparency portal to keep track of audit results, I can almost guarantee that the overwhelming majority of CB auditors have never written a major nonconformity. And, I know for a fact that some CB policies make it basically impossible for the auditors to categorize a NC as a major.
 

Jen Kirley

Quality and Auditing Expert
Leader
Admin
I can only speak for those I know first hand. The CB's procedures I have worked to were specific as to when and how a certificate would be revoked, and none of this was included in those requirements. The procedures were clear about what constituted a Major. I have written several, but was very careful when doing so. Repeated corrective action failure could have something to do with requirements of interested parties, but a certificate withdrawal would not have been for nonconformity to 4.2; it would have been about 10.2.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
I have already reported this, many years ago. During many years, I was in a position to screen and hire third party auditors. Over the years, I have probably interviewed 90-105 auditor candidates; many of them were already working as a CB auditor and one of the questions I would always ask these people how many major NC's had they issued working for their current employer. Interestingly, the large majority of them, but with a special emphasis, those coming from a very large CB that used to like to brag about their size, would tell me they had never written a major. With some probing questions, I could establish the CB internal policies made it almost impossible for the auditor to their job.
 

Randy

Super Moderator
Interesting, not too long ago I wrote multiple majors to a major multi-site client for some severe regulatory (ENV & OHS) problems and failure to follow their own ENV/OHS procedures placing the certification at risk and the letter was sent and received. (1st time I'd been tossed out of a facility, quite fun.) Bottom line and after some changes internally at that location, some culture corrections, the Majors got fixed, I received an apology from their higher corporate and have visited other locations and certification renewed. Contrary to a previous poster, not all OHS auditors lack competency in OHS compliance, some of us (like a few folks here) have multiple decades in ENV & OHS in both compliance and conformance which may not be the case across "the Pond".
 

Henria

OSH Officer
Hello !

Yes, the MS certification market is certainly for something in this difficulty to formulate some nonconformities compromising to obtain certification at the end of certification audits. In a way certification is a "product" to be delivered to the "customer" who buys it... So even if some auditors not only have competences to audit the MS according to the standard but have also competences to really audit compliance with legal relevant requirements (If he has the mission and the time !), the certification of an MS is not conditioned by this real legal confomity. On the other hand public authorities (who have nothing to "sell") have all the latitude authority and power to identify the nonconformities of a company to the legal requirements which are applicable to it ...

Best regards.
 
Last edited:

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
The IAF Mandatory Document 22 requires that the CB to have contractual language with the registrants so the CB is formally informed of the occurrence of a serious incident or breach of regulation necessitating the involvement of the competent regulatory authority. Further down the document, we see the following:

G 9.6.4.2 Independently from the involvement of the competent regulatory authority, a special audit may be necessary in the event that the Certification Body becomes aware that there has been a serious incident related to occupational health and safety, for example, a serious accident, or a serious breach of regulation, in order to investigate if the management system has not been compromised and did function effectively. The Certification Body shall document the outcome of its investigation.

G 9.6.5.2 Information on incidents such as a serious accident, or a serious breach of regulation necessitating the involvement of the competent regulatory authority, provided by the certified client (see G 8.5.3) or directly gathered by the audit team during the special audit, (G 9.6.4.2) shall provide grounds for the Certification Body to decide on the actions to be taken, including a suspension or withdrawal of the certification, in cases where it can be demonstrated that the system seriously failed to meet the OH&S certification requirements. Such requirements shall be part of the contractual agreements between the CAB and the organization.

What I find interesting is that I don't see similar requirements/expectations for the certification of QMS and EMS's in the IAF Mandatory Documents. Why shouldn't the registrants be mandated to formally inform their CB's in case of a major quality problems leading, for example, to consumer injuries and/or fatalities and product recalls? Ditto for major environmental violations? Why a different standard for OHSMS?

Consistent accreditation? :unsure: Hardly so.

By, the way, I do support the language in the IAF MD22, as it drives accountability in the accredited certification process; I just wanted the same type and level of expectations for QMS, EMS, EnMS, ISMS, etc....
 
Top Bottom