To return to the original question, yes, these are instances of nonconformity. Company procedures say what is to be done. It isn't being done. But as an intelligent auditor, I would aim to assess and report the
potential risks or consequences of this behaviour for the organisation (to answer the 'so what'? question).
so what if the local procedures are not being followed. Are the procedures a "rose coloured glasses" world or are the required for any legal or other purpose. If it is not practical or necesary to follow the local procedure, why have it?
That would be a valid point for
management to review and determine following the auditor report. For an auditor, they need to compare practice with procedures, and report if they differ. Clearly, given the information available, they do.
Your procedures should say what you do, not you do what your procedures say.
Er, if you mean 'procedures should accurately reflect practice', I agree with this as a principle.
But to say 'not you do what your procedures say' combined with the previous paragraph sounds like you're saying 'never mind whatever is in the written system, you should just do whatever it is that
you decide is practical and necessary. Nope.
That is contrary to the very point of having, and following a system. I disagree: you
should be doing 'what the procedures say'. If not, then change the procedures (if that's the problem)
or change what's being done. Because one or the other must change.