6 replies to this topic

[KarrieC]

Just got through our recertification.  Good score but we were hit with a major for something that happened outside of our scope.  A co-tenant of our building had a spill. non-allergen, non-toxic, non-bio., etc.  It's sugar.  It was all over there side of the warehouse.  We tried to help them clean it up, but it was big and the auditor came before we finished.  I want to appeal this.  I don't believe it is a food safety issue/hazard.  Undesirable maybe. It does not pose a threat to our food. We started cleaning immediately so not a failure in sanitation, somethings take time.  We didn't just leave it there.  The powder itself is not threat to our product, it may attract pests, but our pest control has been made aware of the situation and monitoring extra just in case.  So not a failure of pest control.  We did not spill it, but we are working with the other tenant to get it cleaned up (our free labor).  I requested and appeal.  this is the response I got.  What do you think my chances are?  $1000?  Is this going to an outside group or will they decide if THEIR auditor is right/wrong?

 

"Dear Karrie,

 

I understand you have requested information to submit an appeal. Please find attached the REC6 Complaints, Appeals, Disputes or Concerns Record Form to be completed to initiate the process. Please complete the first page and return to me. Upon receipt of the completed form, I will forward to our SQF Certification Manager for review and investigation. **Please note in the case of a denied appeal you will be charged an Appeal Processing Fee of $978.

 

Lastly, appealing any Non-conformance does not deter from the timeframe all corrective actions must be submitted. Meaning, you must still submit any and all Corrective Actions and Evidence to your auditor in the timeframe provided (30 days from the last day of your audit).

 

Please let me know if you have any questions."

 

[SHQuality]

How did they word the major in their report?

 

Everything you said makes sense to me, but if the spill wasn't your fault, cleaning was started on time and increased pest control checks were implemented immediately, I'm not sure what they're dinging you for. If you want any sensible answers a few more details would be helpful.

 

Did they perhaps upgrade from a minor to a major because this has been a recurring event from previous audits?

[kingstudruler1]

How did they word the major in their report?

 

Everything you said makes sense to me, but if the spill wasn't your fault, cleaning was started on time and increased pest control checks were implemented immediately, I'm not sure what they're dinging you for. If you want any sensible answers a few more details would be helpful.

 

Did they perhaps upgrade from a minor to a major because this has been a recurring event from previous audits?

 

This.  Please provide the clause and exact wording of the non conformity.   

[SQFconsultant]

I also would like to know exactly how this was worded, but also how is it that you could get a "good score" with a major.

 

My next question would be is their side open to your side - as in do you share a physical space?

 

And finally, did you argue the finding prior to the Auditor leaving the facility?

 

$978 huh?  that is fishy - a sketchy CB could make some nice change by simply saying no to all appeals.

 

I don't actually see how this would be a major, unless of course that "powder" drifted and cross contaminated your side.

[GMO]

Agree with all of the above.  I'd really push it when the auditor is on site as well and make it clear to the auditor that you intend to appeal.  A minor is pushing it as well in my opinion.  Sh** happens but if dealt with appropriately, then it's a judgement call on the part of the auditor.  Is this actually stuff which happens every day or just bad luck?  Even if you believe it's not just a one off, anything higher than a minor seems bizarre.

[jfrey123]

 

 

Is this going to an outside group or will they decide if THEIR auditor is right/wrong?

 

The CB's procedure they referenced should specify, but per the code the CB is required to review your appeal themselves and decide if their auditor was in or out of bounds.  If they return to you and back the auditor, then you can appeal directly to SQFI and let them review both the auditor and the CB to determine whether the finding was valid.

 

Pending whether you can share the code they referenced and the wording of the finding, I would be screaming to high holy heaven in my most indignant outrage.  If the auditor saw you actively trying to clean an ingredient spill, even on your side of the warehouse, and decided to write us up for it, I'd probably have to be physically restrained. 

 

And I've run SQF programs in co-opt'd spaces.  So long as the other tenant's area is clearly marked in your maps as "Not In Scope", only the most egregious of hazards should be of concern.  Granted in my case there were physical barriers between my food and the other tenant's warehouse space, but they were holding all sorts of hazmat chemicals and other crap.  Auditor still walked their space to verify we were vermin proofing the entire shared unit, walked past and commented on all sorts of the naughty items the other tenant kept, but agreed it was not a risk to our food side of the unit.

[LostInTheWoods]

I'll +1 to the others asking for the full wording. At face value, it appears that you've reacted properly, but there could be majors discovered by this error. Putting on my (very much amatuerish) auditing hat, is the shared space accounted for in your location risk assessments (11.1.1.1)? Your allergen risk assessments (2.8.1.1)? Food Defense (2.7.1)?