3 replies to this topic

[mickeykaz2]

hi All
We recently had a customer auit. We manufacture thermoformed containers and supply the main supermarket stores.
During the audit the auditor looked at our return to work procedure and gave us a critical non conformance (response required within 24 hours) for not stating that anyone suffering from sickness & diorhea must be clear of any symptoms for 48 hours before returning to work.

I discussed that we are not a food manufacturer and quoted

BRC IOP
clause 6.4 medical screeningThe company shall have a procedure for the notification by personnel, including temporary personnel, of any relevant infections, diseases or conditions with which they may have been in contact or be suffering from. Employees and visitors suffering from any of the above shall be excluded from work involving contact with high-risk packaging for as long as the symptoms persist.

Has anyone else come across this, if so how did you manage it.

[George @ Safefood 360°]

Hi mickleykaz2

Please see the attached sample procedure and records for medical screening and health of employees. This sample procedure is for a High Risk food operation and will be overkill for your needs as a packaging producer, however you will find it useful as a starting point for developing your own. Sample records are included for Return to Work screening.


George

Attached Files

•  Sample Procedure Personnel Medical Screening and Health.pdf   492.78KB   293 downloads

[Charles.C]

Dear mickeykaz,

Not in the packaging business however i hv noticed that in some segments the BRC packaging standard is analogous to the food version. However current case is an exception in that AFAIK there is no comparable text in BRCfood6 (or probably 3-5 for that matter). Otherwise this topic would no doubt hv surfaced previously.

As per yr quotation, I deduce yr dissension revolves around the interpretation of "persists". This is indeed a beautifully subjective term (as is diarrhoea itself), more typical of an ISO standard. I deduce your OP is seeking to know of any validation of yr auditor's particular choice.

I can suggest 2 possibilities -

(1) The relevant Best Practices guidelines for BRC standards may specify the appropriate BRC interpretation if one has the finances to look within them.

(2) BRC is of UK origin and yr auditor in Afghanistan (? ) may be following the logic of a rather nice FSA (UK) publication which discusses this topic in some detail. I daresay George's neat procedure has a partially similar base also (of course the true origin of all may well be elsewhere, eg WHO). The FSA document referred is -

 FSA 2009 - fitness to work guide 09v3.pdf   89.55KB   180 downloads
(especially see Sec.9)

Rgds / Charles.C

PS - @George, I liked yr procedure muchly however FWIW I noticed some words look to have got deleted in the last 3 lines of Para 1.1.11.

PPS - I expect geographical locations will vary however one procedure I saw for a customer / processor had a chunk of text mentioning legal reservations regarding the scope of information which could be included in a pre-employment form.

[George @ Safefood 360°]

Yes Charles, it is based on what typically would be seen in Ireland and the UK and from guidence which will get you over the line on this area. Your point regarding geographic locations is important. I understand in the USA there are restrictions on the information that can be collected and retained on employees so this needs to be considered.


George

Dear mickeykaz,

Not in the packaging business however i hv noticed that in some segments the BRC packaging standard is analogous to the food version. However current case is an exception in that AFAIK there is no comparable text in BRCfood6 (or probably 3-5 for that matter). Otherwise this topic would no doubt hv surfaced previously.

As per yr quotation, I deduce yr dissension revolves around the interpretation of "persists". This is indeed a beautifully subjective term (as is diarrhoea itself), more typical of an ISO standard. I deduce your OP is seeking to know of any validation of yr auditor's particular choice.

I can suggest 2 possibilities -

(1) The relevant Best Practices guidelines for BRC standards may specify the appropriate BRC interpretation if one has the finances to look within them.

(2) BRC is of UK origin and yr auditor in Afghanistan (? ) may be following the logic of a rather nice FSA (UK) publication which discusses this topic in some detail. I daresay George's neat procedure has a partially similar base also (of course the true origin of all may well be elsewhere, eg WHO). The FSA document referred is -

 FSA 2009 - fitness to work guide 09v3.pdf   89.55KB   180 downloads
(especially see Sec.9)

Rgds / Charles.C

PS - @George, I liked yr procedure muchly however FWIW I noticed some words look to have got deleted in the last 3 lines of Para 1.1.11.

PPS - I expect geographical locations will vary however one procedure I saw for a customer / processor had a chunk of text mentioning legal reservations regarding the scope of information which could be included in a pre-employment form.