7 replies to this topic

[QualityKel]

Hello, 

 

Today, a shipment was received at my facility with some fish product.

 

Half of the cases were labeled with a batch code of X/X/2020 The other half was coded for X/X/2022. 

The batch code is not the expiration date. It should have never been approved to receive.  The supplier is picking up the mislabeled 2022 coded product. 

 

The supplier has documentation supporting that it was an error with their dating and that the product should all have the X/X/2020 batch code date on it.

This information was used to get me on the side of keeping the shipment, but I don't think that the documentation is sufficient enough to support the problem at hand. 

 

I just want to know if there was any way to accept the shipment, like re-labeling the box with a new batch code. Although, that would be a lot of work for our employees to relabel at our facility.

Personally, I think this is a liability issue that could back fire on us in the future. I guess I am looking for reassurance because some people are upset with my decision on sending the product back. 

 

Mislabeled recall? Thoughts? Comments? Did I handle this correctly? Would you have done different?

[kingstudruler1]

I (I) think:

You could have worked out a agreement on providing the labels and cost of relabeling with the supplier. With proper documentation,
etc, I don't see much risk in a liability or regulatory issue.

or

Send it back as you did. This is probably the easiest / safest solution. Why are others upset?



Only because (I) don't think its much of a risk, I would also consider other business / operational aspects (who paid shipping and shipping for
replacement shipment?, will not having the ingredient cause shortages to customers?, production and scheduling issues & costs?, will any of
these costs be recovered?

Why are others upset with your decision?

[SQFconsultant]

Can the shipper provide you with the labels and re-do on paperwork?

 

And also a signed statement between your facility and the shipper indicating that the shipper is sending labels and your facility will be installing them.

 

If its a matter of a lot of work for your facility you can charge the shipper for labor as well.

 

I don't see the reason for sending it back to the shipper - unless they won't comply with the above.

Edited by SQFconsultant, 10 September 2020 - 04:16 PM.

[QualityKel]

I (I) think:

You could have worked out a agreement on providing the labels and cost of relabeling with the supplier. With proper documentation,
etc, I don't see much risk in a liability or regulatory issue.

or

Send it back as you did. This is probably the easiest / safest solution. Why are others upset?



Only because (I) don't think its much of a risk, I would also consider other business / operational aspects (who paid shipping and shipping for
replacement shipment?, will not having the ingredient cause shortages to customers?, production and scheduling issues & costs?, will any of
these costs be recovered?

Why are others upset with your decision?

 

 

Can the shipper provide you with the labels and re-do on paperwork?

 

And also a signed statement between your facility and the shipper indicating that the shipper is sending labels and your facility will be installing them.

 

If its a matter of a lot of work for your facility you can charge the shipper for labor as well.

 

I don't see the reason for sending it back to the shipper - unless they won't comply with the above.

 

From my perspective, the supplier and some associates I work with were trying to do as little work as possible to fix the issue and I was told that the documentation was all that they wanted to supply to avoid the hassle of relabeling and such. 

They are upset because I wouldn't turn a blind eye with this issue and push it through. No one likes when Quality has an issue with something.

Sometimes when an issue occurs, they just want to try to cover up the problem and not follow proper steps. I'm changing the way things are handled here and thought processes!

Things have cooled down; I just think it was "there is a problem and I do not want to deal with all the steps and/or do not understand all the steps needed to address the issue completely."

 

I am just surprised that they let that labeling error go as far as it did, but accidents happen. 

Edited by QualityKel, 10 September 2020 - 04:57 PM.

[MsMars]

As long as you haven't had other issues with this particular supplier, I think it would be reasonable to accept the shipment provided they gave you the proper documentation and labels.  This would definitely needed to be noted on your supplier register in case you have continued issues. 

[Charles.C]

Hello, 

 

Today, a shipment was received at my facility with some fish product.

 

Half of the cases were labeled with a batch code of X/X/2020 The other half was coded for X/X/2022. 

The batch code is not the expiration date. It should have never been approved to receive.  The supplier is picking up the mislabeled 2022 coded product. 

 

The supplier has documentation supporting that it was an error with their dating and that the product should all have the X/X/2020 batch code date on it.

This information was used to get me on the side of keeping the shipment, but I don't think that the documentation is sufficient enough to support the problem at hand. 

 

I just want to know if there was any way to accept the shipment, like re-labeling the box with a new batch code. Although, that would be a lot of work for our employees to relabel at our facility.

Personally, I think this is a liability issue that could back fire on us in the future. I guess I am looking for reassurance because some people are upset with my decision on sending the product back. 

 

Mislabeled recall? Thoughts? Comments? Did I handle this correctly? Would you have done different?

 

Hi QK,

 

"Cases"  = external master carton or internal items or both ?

 

Are there regulatory issues ?

 

is it a retail product ?

 

IMEX of a related error in another Location, the defective cargo was required to be repackaged since interference with labelling was considered illegal. Economic conclusion - "dump".

[Ryan M.]

Do this...determine your actual risk and what is reasonable.  Too many times businesses create some animosity with their suppliers over issues like this.

 

Get on the phone with your supplier and your people who are involved in decision making and come to an agreement of what is reasonable and within your level of tolerance for risk.  Keep in mind a supplier can always say no to supplying you...it is a two way street.

 

 

Can the shipper provide you with the labels and re-do on paperwork?

 

And also a signed statement between your facility and the shipper indicating that the shipper is sending labels and your facility will be installing them.

 

If its a matter of a lot of work for your facility you can charge the shipper for labor as well.

 

I don't see the reason for sending it back to the shipper - unless they won't comply with the above.

[Hoosiersmoker]

I think as long as you have the entire issue documented and initiate a CAPA, also fully documented, maybe a separate CA specifically for that shipment to require them to  take a roll in the correction also. If your roll isn't too expensive, charging back seem punitive to a supplier and might be looked at in a negative light. Mistakes do happen even if everyone follows SOP perfectly. Part of your CA might be retraining for your receiving personnel?