2 replies to this topic

[TimG]

So, I will preface this by saying that nonsense is a matter of opinion. I seen someone earlier say he got a minor NC for one solitary ant found, and it got me wondering, how often do we push back? When do you think it's appropriate to push back?

 

Now to the comedy: 

I had an auditor give me 2 NC's in a recent audit (not GFSI). Their audit has requirements NOT listed on the standard. As in, there is no possible way I would know they were a requirement. I let them know it was not listed on the standard, they upheld. Ok, no biggy. I will pass the audit either way and it's not 'scored' but I'm not just going quietly into the night. The following is word for word my RC description.

 

Root cause analysis, what caused the NC:

This audit checklist requirement not being in the actual XX standard.

Also, disagree with determination that notification of supplier isn't inherently implied in the document when it states there is 'rejection for positive results' on testing. As if the rejected loads would magically disperse into the ether.

 

 

Anyone else had some doozies they can share for giggles?

[Tony-C]

Hi Tim,

 

Auditor sounds like a bit of a muppet, send your response and move on, I'm sure you have got bigger fish to fry. 

 

Allowing things like to this to nark you are a waste of energy.

 

I have have contested NCs in the past but usually major ones, for example I justified not having a metal detector based on existing controls and no metal complaints going back over 5 years.

 

BRC subsequently changed the standard to make metal detection compulsory (unless a more effective control measure was in place).

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony

[GMO]

I would say it's increasing with the level and number of inexperienced auditors.  I don't mean "not trained to audit" but "having barely any food industry experience".  We have a crisis in this in my view due in no small part to auditing CBs paying peanuts and retirement of the old guard.

 

I don't do a lot of auditing now but when I do, any non con is raised at the time and discussed so there is the chance to clarify my misunderstanding and that happens.  Likewise though I'm not a pushover.  

 

It seems as though the non con in your case was semantics.  The older I get the more inclined I am to not fully ignore the procedure but not to get hung up about it.  What happens in practice is more important.  I'm still a stickler but stuff like the above (if I felt it was an issue, which I don't) would be more likely to go on the "I'm not going to record this but think it's a good idea to close this gap" list.  I.e. the list the TM is producing themselves (we all know we do).

 

Have I pushed back?  Yes.  I always do with anything I think is BS but likewise I never push back on something I think is genuine.  I know others will.  If you find a genuine gap, I'm not "producing" evidence to "prove" it's not.  Some sites sadly will.  But I'll fight on something I think is BS.  I have had that twice with AIB and both times got them removed on the audit.  Although I almost always disagree how AIB score, I rarely push back on that unless it's extreme because I normally find it balances out.  E.g. they score what I think is a minor issue as a more significant one but also a more significant as minor as well.  But AIB are funny on scoring anyway.  I often walked away thinking "i'd have guessed at the same number but would have got there a different way."  At that point I shrug and figure it's not worth the battle.