36 replies to this topic

[BGAQA]

Looking at BRCGS 7.2.1 I see no way I can risk asses my way out of the scenario that greeted me when I got to work today.  Someone has been hired to work in the packing section of the factory with nose and earrings.  The nose rings are gone, but the worker claims that the earrings cannot be removed other than by the installing technician, and they seem secure.

 

For now, I have him wearing blue MD band-aids over them.

 

7.2.1 "Rings and studs in exposed parts of the body, such as the ears, nose, and eyebrows, shall not be worn." 

 

I do not see any way out of it other than getting rid of the worker.

Edited by BGAQA, 04 March 2024 - 09:54 PM.

[beautiophile]

Looking at BRCGS 7.2.1 I see no way I can risk asses my way out of the scenario that greeted me when I got to work today.  Someone has been hired to work in the packing section of the factory with nose and earrings.  The nose rings are gone, but the worker claims that the earrings cannot be removed other than by the installing technician, and they seem secure.

 

For now, I have him wearing blue MD band-aids over them.

 

7.2.1 "Rings and studs in exposed parts of the body, such as the ears, nose, and eyebrows, shall not be worn." 

 

I do not see any way out of it other than getting rid of the worker.

 

BRCGS has loosened the requirements from Issue 6 to let people wear medical devices and religion items (a.k.a. ethical matter) during their work. This also creates a loop hole that the naughties want to exploit.

[BGAQA]

The worker is not making any religious or lifestyle claims, so I'm not going to go out of my way to accommodate an exception.

[paulkenny92]

Sounds like you're referencing the food standard rather than packaging.

This came up for me the other week at a packaging site. We are non-food contact, but adhered to same rules as in 7.2 anyway, no jewelry other than medical and planin wedding band.

However, we have just hired someone with a nose ring and earrings. I've risk assessed now to allows these in this case, but also told him to remove them when the auditor is here.

For a site that is food contact and the employee can't remove the jewelry easily then I'd get written consent from a Director and appeal to an auditor's sense of reason if it comes up. If the jewelry is clearly fixed and has very little risk of coming loose, along with the explanation it can only be taken out by a technician etc. then you'd just hope the auditor sees reason, along with a written concession from a director and maybe a risk assessment anyway. It's not fair to get rid of the employee just for this and you'd be in hot water with employment law!

[Setanta]

I would say they get to wear MD Bandages during their work hours.

[Scampi]

Sounds like you need to have a convo with HR

 

If it is a company requirement that no jewelry is allowed, than HR needs to make it understood during the hiring process

 

As per your policy, covered til they are removed 

 

If you start making exceptions now, you'll find that slope to be ridiculously slippery and you will become the plant police

[MOHAMMED ZAMEERUDDIN]

All jewellery must be removed when entering the plant.

[MDaleDDF]

However, we have just hired someone with a nose ring and earrings. I've risk assessed now to allows these in this case, but also told him to remove them when the auditor is here.

 

 

If it's not an issue, why do they need to be removed if the auditor is in house?

[paulkenny92]

If it's not an issue, why do they need to be removed if the auditor is in house?

It gives the auditor one less thing to potentially question. I like keeping audits as straight forward as possible, but good to have the contingency in place just in case.

[RobiWanKenobi]

Same here, marriage-rings allowed as long as they are plain and clean.

My first food processing company allowing this. We are handling frozen and unpacked fish products.

Any other visible jewelry is forbidden. To me the rings also need to be not prohibited forbidden during work, even under the gloves. I dont get how to transfer any sense of hygiene and working safety on one side and allowing this on the other side. The fine Lines between FoodHygiene and the "normal" outside and not so clean area gets blurred a little bit. Most difficult thing is to forbid something that was allowed for about 15 yrs. whereas people, systems and surroundings remain the same. I'm not friend of giving theoretical excemptions (i.e. remove when auditor is in place), then you open the door for a lot of other excemptions happening when you turn your back on the staff.

[MDaleDDF]

It gives the auditor one less thing to potentially question. I like keeping audits as straight forward as possible, but good to have the contingency in place just in case.

Eh.  The entire idea of these systems is say what you'll do, do what you say.  If it's ok when the auditor isn't there, it should be ok when the auditor is.   Personally, I do not do anything different for an auditor than I would on a normal day.   And if I were an auditor and found out you were doing this, I'd wonder what else you're hiding on audit day...

Just food for thought.  

 

"Once you consent to some concession, you can never cancel it and put things back the way they are."

 

-Howard Hughes

[paulkenny92]

Eh.  The entire idea of these systems is say what you'll do, do what you say.  If it's ok when the auditor isn't there, it should be ok when the auditor is.   Personally, I do not do anything different for an auditor than I would on a normal day.   And if I were an auditor and found out you were doing this, I'd wonder what else you're hiding on audit day...

Just food for thought.  

 

"Once you consent to some concession, you can never cancel it and put things back the way they are."

 

-Howard Hughes

Yeah, I understand the rationale definitely. I just find that for BRC Packaging, the auditor tends to be really up against it anyway time wise, and so never actually ends up digging too deep. Rather keep things as simple as possible and get through all the clauses

Edited by paulkenny92, 12 March 2024 - 01:43 PM.