Ideas on how to get employees to wear hair nets correctly?
Hi
I am looking for some ideas on how to get employees to wear hair nets correctly? We have some employees that do not contain all the hair or their ears and training has not always worked? Can someone suggest some ideas, or maybe suggest a good hairnet type that we can get in Canada?
I think that sometimes the hairnets we use are too large and cause gaps too that allow hair to escape.
thanks!
Janice
Hi Janice
Hairnets come in different sizes, you may be correct and need to change. We use 21", the 24" are too big
You could try raffle tickets for prizes/cash for correct use instead of punishing the incorrect use. I myself need to wear 2 hairnets no matter the size lol
Are there unbreakable mirrors available where the PPE is put on so that employees can see?
Hi,
You can use PP balaclava if you want full head coverage including hairs. You will certainly get complaints on how restricting and uncomfortable to wear as it fully covers the head and neck area and only shows the face. It is generally more expensive too than the regular PP hair net.
Do you get a lot of hair complaints? If so, then you may want to review using this instead of regular hairnets. But I'm assuming, you would have to give a very credible justification to management for this change.
We use mob caps which are non woven and have no gaps:
For people with "long or unruly hair" which does not stay in one of these mob caps, they also wear a hair net underneath, i.e. they put something like this on first then a mob cap on top like the one above.
Once you've decided on a method which holds the hair in adequately, compliance should be easy. You need to make sure you have the buy in of all of the managers. You need to make sure the resources are available (i.e. you have the mob caps at point of entry and stocked at all times). You also need to make sure you have a means for members of staff to make sure they are wearing their hair covering correctly, you can get stainless steel non glass mirrors for this. You need to train people and train people of the consequences which are both for your consumers (complaints) and for them (persistant offenders will end up in disciplinary). You could also make it part of a GMP audit so they would consistently lose points for not having hair coverings worn appropriately. I would then encourage all staff, not just technical to talk to anyone with an issue then if there are persistant offenders, do ensure operations actually go through with a disciplinary.
First, do you have problems with hair in your product or a particular food safety risk if it were to be in there?
If yes, then the answers above are good. If no, please don't use up all of your compliance "points" with production staff on harping on hairnets. Focus on sanitation, documentation, and clean food handling practices (handwashing, gloves, etc.). QA people love to micromanage hairnets because they're easy to see and often an audit "point". But usually the risk is low both for quality and safety, and operators who get nagged about hairnets care less when you nag about real food safety concerns like moving from dirty to clean areas.
If you can relax on it a bit, focus on culture change with hairnets. Do you wear your hairnet perfectly at all times, especially when it's inconvenient, do the supervisors/managers/maintenance staff? Change the look of your workplace to the point that people feed weird when they don't wear them correctly, and watch them forget they're even there.
I think F3 makes some good points. Hairnets are easy to see that people are wearing incorrectly. In my mind one of the most important things you can do is to model proper GMPs whenever you are on the floor. If people on the floor see QA not wearing a hairnet, or not washing their hands, then they will think it is ok that they also do not follow the rules.
First, do you have problems with hair in your product or a particular food safety risk if it were to be in there?
If yes, then the answers above are good. If no, please don't use up all of your compliance "points" with production staff on harping on hairnets. Focus on sanitation, documentation, and clean food handling practices (handwashing, gloves, etc.). QA people love to micromanage hairnets because they're easy to see and often an audit "point". But usually the risk is low both for quality and safety, and operators who get nagged about hairnets care less when you nag about real food safety concerns like moving from dirty to clean areas.
If you can relax on it a bit, focus on culture change with hairnets. Do you wear your hairnet perfectly at all times, especially when it's inconvenient, do the supervisors/managers/maintenance staff? Change the look of your workplace to the point that people feed weird when they don't wear them correctly, and watch them forget they're even there.
I disagree. Yes hair is a potential food safety risk because of potential pathogens it carries with it. It's also an unpleasant and not tolerated consumer complaint.
I used to have the same approach, i.e. "if it's never been a problem, why worry?" but then had a massive micro issue in one site from preventable and predictable failings which had never caused an issue before.
I would be shocked as well if hair control were not picked up on customer audits. It is very easy to fix and very easy to comply with, hence, auditors tend to be pretty impatient if you can't even do that. I also have more faith in our employees too. I don't think an operator's ability to comply is limited to a small number of items. Compliance can actually build the more things an operator complies with. How do I mean? Imagine a restaurant where clothing is worn badly, maybe damaged or dirty all the time. Imagine another where clothing is all worn well, in good repair and clean. Which would you trust to follow cooking instructions for a meal? I know I would trust the latter.
we have not had any complaints on hair in food, but have lost audit points for hair nets and beard nets previously. If we dont figure out how to remain compliant consistently, then next year it would go from a minor issue to a major one
we have not had any complaints on hair in food, but have lost audit points for hair nets and beard nets previously. If we dont figure out how to remain compliant consistently, then next year it would go from a minor issue to a major one
Not sure of your audit scheme. But that's not how minor's/major's work in SQF. There's not an escalation procedure (in ed. 7.2)
Major Non-conformance means a lack or deficiency in the SQF System producing unsatisfactory conditions that carry a food safety or quality risk and likely to result in a systems element breakdown.
Minor Non-conformance means a lack or deficiency in the SQF System that produces unsatisfactory conditions that if not addressed may lead to a risk to food safety and quality but not likely to cause a systems element breakdown.
Employees not wearing their hairnet perfectly at all times doesn't undo your haccp plan or PRP's, unless they found zero evidence of either a policy or the majority of employees don't comply. I would never expect a major.
I disagree. Yes hair is a potential food safety risk because of potential pathogens it carries with it. It's also an unpleasant and not tolerated consumer complaint.
I used to have the same approach, i.e. "if it's never been a problem, why worry?" but then had a massive micro issue in one site from preventable and predictable failings which had never caused an issue before.
Were those failings due to hair? I'm not saying to ignore hair restraint. But instead prioritize your food safety risks, and hair is low on the list of impactful failings that can occur. To your example above, I would focus much more on appropriate/clean clothing than ideal hairnet usage.
I do absolutely agree that asthetics are important and help build a quality culture, and hairnets can be a way to start that momentum. But in the risk assessment of bad behaviors/GMP compliance, hair restraint is way further down my list than sanitation, filthy hand/glove contact, and inspection.
Establish the standard and encourage the team to hold each other accountable in a professional manner. This may start of as a reminder to keep each other "out of trouble" (therefore a consequence may need to be in place at the beginning). As time goes on friendly reminders between them will keep the system in place.
The worst thing to establish is that you are the only "cop". Enforcement is not a long term strategy, compliance is. Unconditional adherence to the standard is needed early so someone might have to be the bad guy, but then it becomes the way we do things.
It will pay off. One of my best managers ever got compliance from his team all the time and when I asked him how he did it, hiss simple answer was you only get the excuses you accept.
As far as a good type of hairnet, get one that everyone agrees is comfortable and can do the job. it doesnt need to be sophisticated just used right.
My recommendation would be to take a picture of the senior management all wearing hairnets correctly and make a poster of the picture. You could include a hairnet slogan like "Wearing harinets properly...it matters" or "Food Safety starts with you" and post next to the hair net bins. Another idea would be to put up a shatterproof mirror next to the hairnet bin so that people can see how to properly put the hairnet on.
Hi Janice,
am looking for some ideas on how to get employees to wear hair nets correctly? We have some employees that do not contain all the hair or their ears and training has not always worked? Can someone suggest some ideas, or maybe suggest a good hairnet type that we can get in Canada?
I think that sometimes the hairnets we use are too large and cause gaps too that allow hair to escape.
I'm unsure whether you represent the voice of QA or Production but I anticipate the former. IMEX this topic, or its defects, should be a shared responsibility.
My comment on yr OP is what are the "RCA" reasons for yr difficulties. If only technical it seeems to me the previous suggestions are optimistic to be tried.
If the problem is more on implementation (eg my first para.) yr Post 8 is a worthwhile lever for "assistance". (Management Committment?)
It all depends.
--------------------
(slightly OT)
@ F3 - The concept (philosophy?) of Risk Prioritising, Prerequisite Programs is IMO a somewhat novel/questionable one (slippery slope syndrome ?).
However IMEX of seafood the SSOP of "safe water/ice" is often audited as a serious/critical safety defect if found so there is undoubtedly some potential risk support yr theory.
And I agree the opposite viewpoint "tends" to hold for "low" hair criticisms (after all, it's not, as you noted, a generic safety hazard but it can signal a potential PRP systemic defect).
(BUT, if the product is for a (top?) fast food operator, I can assure you that one hair discovered in their received output represents an instant catastrophe and will generate an immediate visit to the offender !)
It would be interesting, eg for SQF system, to know if any (defective) PRPs are auditorially (risk?) demerited equal points (no direct experience SQF myself).
Don't know about SQF but if you're audited to BRC it is theoretically possible to get a repeat minor raised as a major and a minor raised against senior management commitment if previous non conformances are not closed out.
While I understand the "ain't broke, don't fix it" argument, I've never had a food safety complaint directly related to lack of medical screening, doesn't mean I'm going to stop doing it. Can it be a food safety or quality risk? Yes. Is it easy and cheap to resolve? Yes. I don't see why you wouldn't and I would be happy as an auditor to raise it as a non conformance. No-one should expect to have hair in their food whether it is a food safety issue (associated pathogens) or not. I would be horrified if I couldn't get operations support on something as simple as hair control and be looking for another job forthwith... imagine what will happen when you come to the very expensive arguments?
I love the comments made by both GMO and KrisY. it is interesting to see the various view points provided by persons. In an audit, every auditable item contributes to the overall implementation of a system and will be taken into consideration. No one wants to have hair (even if it is a tiny piece) in their food. Word goes around and a company's reputation is at stake. Friendly reminders can be done during walk through in the processing facility by supervisors and managers. Disciplinary action should be the last resort and can be done if a particular staff deliberately flaunts rules.
I love the comments made by both GMO and KrisY. it is interesting to see the various view points provided by persons. In an audit, every auditable item contributes to the overall implementation of a system and will be taken into consideration. No one wants to have hair (even if it is a tiny piece) in their food. Word goes around and a company's reputation is at stake. Friendly reminders can be done during walk through in the processing facility by supervisors and managers. Disciplinary action should be the last resort and can be done if a particular staff deliberately flaunts rules.
Hi corallie,
Friendly and still surviving in QA ?. Wow ! Must be a very Low Risk Process.
Use QA's to monitor this during general GMP audits. Take names and let staff know disciplinary action will be taken against repeat offenders.
This is in place at our factory and works very well.