Must Employee Handbooks be Controlled?

[murban]

Employee Handbook

Has anyone ever heard of putting the Employee Handbook under documentation control?

 

[energy]

Not a bad idea

Basically, that's a HR function and has nothing to do with the QMS. However, it's not a bad idea to control it outside the area of QMS Document Control because of Company Rules changing and the employee having an old copy would not know the difference. I don't believe any Auditor would ever get into that area. But there may be others who see it different. If you choose to list it with all your other documents, it will become auditable as to employees having access to, or the latest copy. I figured that I'd get it started.

 

[Randy]

If the handbook has the policy and other system related stuff in it, it should be controlled, and wet on HR if they don't like it.


The EMS systems I've done have had the employee handbook as a controlled document....it provide some evidence towards training and other things.

 

[Mike S.]

A sticky wicket as the Brits say. I’d say do not put the HR manual under QMS control. Why make life more difficult than it is already keeping up the requirements of ISO? If HR is serious about keeping the manuals up-to-date and so on let them control it with an iron fist if they want to – that’s great – but do it outside of the QMS. MHO is don’t make the QMS more complex and difficult to keep up on than necessary. Training requirements, etc. that do fall under the QMS can and should be under the QMS control. But who wants to get dinged on an ISO audit if the employees are going on break at 10:15 to 10:30 instead of the 10:00 to 10:15 that the HR manual states or some silly thing like that? In the ideal world, maybe it would be nice, but in the real world that I’ve seen it would cause many more problems than benefits. We keep ‘em separate and will continue to do so unless/until someone can prove to me it is worth putting them together.

 

[Randy]

Mike must be smokin' his tea instead of drinkng it.

Don't get wrapped around an axle with an issue like this. If you have no information in the handbook pertaining to the QMS leave it uncontrolled. If you have information related to the QMS, control it and specify those elements of the handbook that are effected. Or not. Who really gives a Rats A - -. It's your system, you decide. If some dippy auditor wants to blow a gasket over your employee handbook tell him/her to go outside.

Please don't mis-understand me. This is an important issue to you, but as in many things others may tend to lose focus on real issues.

Bottom line...Is there anything in your employee handbook that can have an effect upon the quality of your system or directly relates to your QMS? If there is, then have whoever the responsible party is, manage the handbook and keep applicable information current. IMHO anyway

 

[JodiB]

We don't give each employee a copy of the manual. There is an office hardcopy provided as part of new hire induction and they sit somewhere, read through it, sign something that says they've read it and have had an opportunity to ask questions. Beyond that, it is available on our network. Since we have operations in three countries, our employment policies vary and we have one for each region. Control is simply to provide the current hardcopy and to replace the one on the network with whatever is current. Not hard to do.

Do I list it as a QMS document? Well no. I could I suppose. It is reviewed, approved, distributed, etc. just like any other important document used in our business.

 

[E Wall]

Nope

The only way our employee handbook is controlled is that it is put out by the HR Manager (after corporate review). Our handbook covers information that isn't relevant to the QMS so we do not make reference to it at all.

 

[James Gutherson]

We have a system for controlling documents, whether they are QMS based, OH&S, EMS, financial, whatever, and the employee handbook,which needs to be kept upto date, versions, changes and distribution noted, is part of that.
One system of control, not a bunch of disparate systems all trying to do the same thing. This is just good sence, isn't it?

 

[E Wall]

James Gutherson said: We have a system for controlling documents, whether they are QMS based, OH&S, EMS, financial, whatever, and the employee handbook,which needs to be kept upto date, versions, changes and distribution noted, is part of that.
One system of control, not a bunch of disparate systems all trying to do the same thing. This is just good sence, isn't it?

I think the differences from the many posts are some provide control within the QMS and others don't. Speaking for the company I work for - yes the handbook is controlled, kept up to date...yada, yada, yada...but governed by the VP of HR not mentioned/directed/goverened by the QMS.

IMHO - In an idealistic setting one rule applies to all - less confusion and this also maintains consistancy (both of expectations and follow-thru); However, as in many companies there are power struggle issues - and this approach cannot work unless led by TOP Mgmt.

 

[Mike S.]

James Gutherson said:

We have a system for controlling documents, whether they are QMS based, OH&S, EMS, financial, whatever, and the employee handbook,which needs to be kept upto date, versions, changes and distribution noted, is part of that.
One system of control, not a bunch of disparate systems all trying to do the same thing. This is just good sence, isn't it?

James,

One system for controlling all is fine if it works for you. Wonderful even. But that doesn't mean you have to make the "OH&S, EMS, financial, whatever, and the employee handbook" all part of the QMS and eligible for audit by the registrar or customer auditor, does it? Is your system that way? For example, if the finance guy forgets to audit/reconcile the petty cash drawer every month like it says in the finance policy manual, do you want a QMS ding?