Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

How often do you push back on nonsense findings in audits?

Share this

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

TimG

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 884 posts
  • 230 thanks
426
Excellent

  • United States
    United States

Posted Yesterday, 07:55 PM

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?

  • 1

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 4,774 posts
  • 1412 thanks
778
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:World
  • Interests:My main interests are sports particularly football, pool, scuba diving, skiing and ten pin bowling.

Posted Today, 03:43 AM

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


  • 0

IFSQN Implementation Packages, helping sites achieve food safety certification since 2009: 

IFSQN BRC, FSSC 22000, IFS, ISO 22000, SQF (Food, Packaging, Storage & Distribution) Implementation Packages - The Easy Way to Certification

 

Practical Internal Auditor Training for Food Operations - Available via the previous webinar recording. Fantastic value at $97/per person, but don’t take our word for it, read the Customer Reviews here

 


GMO

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 3,697 posts
  • 863 thanks
427
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted Today, 08:43 AM

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.


  • 1

************************************************

25 years in food.  And it never gets easier.


TimG

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 884 posts
  • 230 thanks
426
Excellent

  • United States
    United States

Posted Today, 01:46 PM

 "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."

Absolutely. I've had 8 audits over the past year, only 3 of them were from people who've audited before and 2 of them were retiring within the year (last year). 

And to clarify, these things are low on my nark list. I actually enjoy giving them a bit of hell in my responses, but at the end of the day I know we're all just trying to do our jobs. I've only once in my 15 years in food had an auditor I'd consider a true jerk (self important, my way or the highway, etc) and thankfully that was very early in my food safety career so I was only riding second chair on the audit.


  • 0

jfrey123

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,139 posts
  • 302 thanks
545
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sparks, NV

Posted Today, 02:45 PM

..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).

So you're the guy who ruined it for everybody lol jk.

 

When I was primarily consulting with my partner, it was our job to push back on non-sense.  Mostly we try to address our concerns with their perception before the report gets published, because it's a more drawn out process to appeal the findings later and it can cause a black mark on the auditor's record if too many of their findings are overturned.  We didn't want that for them, but we also wanted the best score for our clients.

 

One SQF auditor was ready to give a client a finding for an exterior door's self-closer being broken.  We had to pull up the code (11.1.5.1) which states "external access personnel doors" shall have a self-closing device.  The door in question was not permitted by the plant to be used for personnel except as an emergency exit and was effectively sealed against pests.  It was shown on the flow maps as non-access, it was marked with signs to prohibit entry/exit, and employee training had them effectively using the designated entrances to this storage area.  The closer looked 'broken' because it had been cannibalized for parts to fix other door closers.  We had told her this during the walkthrough when she saw it, to which she nodded and said okay, but then tried to bring it up back during our closing meeting and we had to argue it again with the code in front of us all.

 

Another one was at my first spice plant.  Small time customer sends an auditor who seemed like a bored old dude, so really no one was taking his visit seriously (not even him, honestly) until we got to the break room.  He informed us that a thermometer in the employee refrigerator along with a checklist for monitoring (every hour I think he claimed) was an SQF requirement.  Told him, 'Nope, that's not in the code anywhere.  Not spelled out in any guidance.'  He told me he thinks I'm wrong but moved on in a way that I thought it was over.  Week later we get the 'report' from our customer and it had this as a finding they demanded a CAPA for.  Wanted to tell them to p-off, but boss made me word it more diplomatically:  "We have reviewed and find ourselves to be in compliance with the SQF standard, as have our three prior SQF auditors, but will make a note to consider this during any future improvements."

 

My boss man has also pushed back on a critical before.  Currently not consulting, we're both working where a company makes fruit and veg trays at various sites.  A new tray at one site had them putting pre-packaged single servings of baby carrots into one of the bins of the tray.  The HACCP states all the fruit and veg goes through a wash cycle for (I think) 30 seconds minimum.  When operations started the new line, we in corp QA told them they needed to wash the little baggies of baby carrots and they did, except they half-assed it and basically were dipping the bags in the wash solution instead of allowing the 30 second dwell time.  Auditor recorded that as a critical failure because we weren't following our HACCP.  Boss was on site for that audit and was upset with the plant, but also upset the auditor recorded it as a critical.  Yes, it was a breakdown of our HACCP, but SQF's definition of critical includes "...judged likely to cause a significant public health risk and/or product contamination".  Auditor couldn't articulate how a washed bag of baby carrots could likely cause a significant public health risk, and we even agreed it deserved a major, but insisted she record it that way.  We appealed and SQF agreed it was not a critical.


  • 0



Share this

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users