28 replies to this topic

[yorkshire]

Dear All,

Part of BRC version 4 clause 6.2.9 states "Other jewellery shall only be worn for ethnic, medical or religious reasons and shall be one piece and appropriately controlled to minimise the risk of cotamination".

On our site, at present, we do not have anyone who has requested to wear jewellery for these reasons but we do need to put it into our policy and procedures so that we know how to handle it when it occurs. Has anyone else included this in theit personal hygiene policies / procedures? What did you do?

Thanks

[Gaskit]

 Jewellery_Policy.doc   134KB   379 downloads

Dear All,

Part of BRC version 4 clause 6.2.9 states "Other jewellery shall only be worn for ethnic, medical or religious reasons and shall be one piece and appropriately controlled to minimise the risk of cotamination".

On our site, at present, we do not have anyone who has requested to wear jewellery for these reasons but we do need to put it into our policy and procedures so that we know how to handle it when it occurs. Has anyone else included this in theit personal hygiene policies / procedures? What did you do?

Thanks

The attached may be of help, just re-jig.

Regards,

Steve

Attached Files

•  Jewellery_register.doc   24.5KB   536 downloads
•  Hygiene_regs_and_med_screen.doc   22.5KB   489 downloads

[yorkshire]

The attached may be of help, just re-jig.

Thanks Steve,

This looks great. My only concern would be the amount of checking required, even if you only had one member of staff with this religious / ethinic / medical jewellery I suspect that a gap in the records may appear = non conformance .

My thoughts were to devise an individual risk assessment based on the person / jewellery worn. The level of risk would determine the controls put in place and the checking frequency may vary. I was also looking at putting extra responsibility on the person wearing the jewellery, e.g. signing to say they will report any damage / loss immediately.

As we don't have any exceptions at present I might be going into to much depth.

Should we be keeping a register and putting similar controls in place for people wearing wedding rings?

My brain hurts now.

What does everybody think?

When was the last time jewellery (permitted) was found in a metal detector or customer complaint?

[Charles.C]

Dear Yorkshire

It appears to me that the BRC hierarchy have realized that these aspects have the potential to be very hot potatoes indeed and are studiously trying to avoid confrontation. Such issues were slightly approached in Max's earlier thread who ultimately stated that he had chosen the 'narrow' option, presumably since his head was hurting also. It would be nice to hear how he has got on?
Successful implemetation is another thing of course. I guess it depends somewhat on yr process / consequences as to how draconian the management is prepared to be. (or how far you wish /are compelled to be duly diligent).

Rgds / Charles.C

[Simon]

This looks great. My only concern would be the amount of checking required, even if you only had one member of staff with this religious / ethinic / medical jewellery I suspect that a gap in the records may appear = non conformance .

Tight control Steve however, I agree with Yorky, I would be fearful of setting myself up for a fall with such a rigid procedure. A case by case risk assessment is the sensible choice, what is the jewellery item - how big? Where does the employee work - high risk, low risk? An end of shift check may well be sufficient. Perhaps a few dozen winds of blue tape to minimise the risk even further, may even persuade the employee to remove it.

When was the last time jewellery (permitted) was found in a metal detector or customer complaint?

Good point. BTW I like your new avatar yorky; I might get a Lancashire one for balance.

It appears to me that the BRC hierarchy have realized that these aspects have the potential to be very hot potatoes indeed and are studiously trying to avoid confrontation. Such issues were slightly approached in Max's earlier thread who ultimately stated that he had chosen the "narrow" option, presumably since his head was hurting also. It would be nice to hear how he has got on?

Yes where are you Max?

[cazyncymru]

This can be a real minefield.....not only do you have to look at Food Safety issues, but you have to consider human rights!!

As a company we stated in our pre-requisites that no jewellery, bar a plain metal band can be worn. I know that are probably a few of you out there holding your head in your hands thinking " the girl's finally lost it" but we did a risk assessment and decided that ANY risk was too great a risk ( look at the latest food recall..glass in rice)

Where do you stop? As a food manufacturer i didn't think it appropriate that we allow hindi women to wear glass bangles (in lieu of a wedding ring) in a food production area. But how can i differentiate between one religon and another?

My first concern is for food safety, and we have to keep that at the fore front of our deliberations at all times.

Edited by cazyncymru, 19 December 2006 - 04:27 PM.

[yorkshire]

Hi Caz,

.... no jewellery, bar a plain metal band can be worn.

Would this include a Sikh wedding bracelet?

But how can i differentiate between one religon and another?

I think you are already differentiating by accepting a wedding ring and not considering other forms of low risk symbols.

As you say it is a minefield. We are based in a traditional Yorkshire (ex)mining area and have a very low (0.18%!) ethnic workforce but as the BRC standard mentions ethnic and religious jewellery we need to have something in place. Why don't we ban all jewellery? When I go to our parent company in Germany I have to remove my plain wedding ring (IFS says no Jewellery but when we have our IFS audit I argue a plain band wedding ring is not jewellery(?))

What we have done for now is to highlight the fact that this problem may occur one day and that a written risk assessmnet will be carried out if someone wants to wear something other than a plain band ring.

Everyone please also remember that this is not just a religious / ethnic issue. If one of your staff is fitted with a pacemaker they will need to wear a necklace stating this in case of medical emergencies.

Cheers

[cazyncymru]

Yorky

Maybe we are discriminating, but on certain pieces of kit, for which we have done a risk assessment, we don't allow them to wear wedding rings. In fact we say plain metal bands and not wedding rings.

We have also addressed the medi alert question

Below is an extract from our Pre-requisites. It is up to the employer in each case to evaluate the risk and decide if its worth it. As a company, we decided the risk was not worth it. If as a company you think the risk is minimal then it doesn't mean your wrong to allow them to wear jewellery. Personally i think that managers wearing ties in production areas is asking for trouble.

l) The wearing of all jewellery and watches, with the exception of a plain metal band is forbidden in production areas. Operators of the ENERCON are not permitted to wear wedding rings. No jewellery may be worn for religious reasons. Medi-alert is permitted under the discretion of the unit manager, on receipt of a notice from a doctor, recorded in personnel files and must be covered at all times.

[yorkshire]

As a company, we decided the risk was not worth it. If as a company you think the risk is minimal then it doesn't mean your wrong to allow them to wear jewellery. Personally i think that managers wearing ties in production areas is asking for trouble.

Caz,

As you say it's all down to risk assessment.

[Charles.C]

Dear Cazyx,

I respect yr decisive choices but the blanket statement "No jewellery may be worn for religious reasons." is surely legally undefendable unless there is a clear safety risk.

Rgds / Charles.C

[cazyncymru]

Dear Cazyx,

I respect yr decisive choices but the blanket statement "No jewellery may be worn for religious reasons." is surely legally undefendable unless there is a clear safety risk.

Rgds / Charles.C

Yes, i realise we may leave ourselves wide open for litigation, but we do have a very intensive risk assessment, not only for personal safety, but for food safety!

[Max]

Yes where are you Max?

Here I am...

I have been quite busy the last few months and I still am, so I couldn't take part in the discussions. I discovered this topic today.

Indeed I started a discussion on jewelry earlier this year and I just wanted to give you some feedback:

Indeed I opted for the "narrow" choice as Cherles already said, which means "no jewlery at all" in the production area (well at least no visible jewelry...). I have implemented this policy three months ago and it has worked well since. I have to admit that there was already a policy in place and there were only few people and things concerned (piercings for example) so that made it easier for me.
I did not mention religious jewelry as this is not a big issue here in Luxembourg, unlike in England I guess where there might be more people from different religions....

By the way, merry christmas to everyone!!!

Edited by Max, 22 December 2006 - 10:30 AM.

[Simon]

Indeed I opted for the "narrow" choice as Cherles already said, which means "no jewlery at all" in the production area (well at least no visible jewelry...).

I like rules without fuzzy edges. Wise choise max, all the best for Christmas, we hope to see you again in 2007.

Regards,
Simon

[Charles.C]

Dear Max,

Hi again.
Hope you've not been too disturbed by the US spinach disaster, seems that vegetables are having a difficult period lately.

Regardless, Season's Greetings,

Charles.C

[YongYM]

Dear all:



Ideally, I think most of you would like to ban all the jewellery so that it will be very easy during audit. However, for countries like Malaysia, where there is a mixture of different ethics and culture, we need to be extra careful when implementing the Jewellery Policy. In fact, most of the workers are Indian and Malays. We definitely try to put ourselves in their shoes.



So, we follow the requirement of the BRC. However, want them to in turn give their cooperation to us by properly wearing the face masks, hairnets, socks, shoes covers (temporary workers). We also carry out daily checking.

Any further advice from you all???

Edited by YongYM, 05 February 2007 - 09:06 AM.

[Simon]

Dear all:



Ideally, I think most of you would like to ban all the jewellery so that it will be very easy during audit. However, for countries like Malaysia, where there is a mixture of different ethics and culture, we need to be extra careful when implementing the Jewellery Policy. In fact, most of the workers are Indian and Malays. We definitely try to put ourselves in their shoes.



So, we follow the requirement of the BRC. However, want them to in turn give their cooperation to us by properly wearing the face masks, hairnets, socks, shoes covers (temporary workers). We also carry out daily checking.

Any further advice from you all???

Hygiene rules are as none negotiable as turning up for work on time and not punching anyone in the nose. If people cannot subscribe to the company rules you don't take them on in the first place. It's not being discriminatory or racist it is just the rules of the game.

Simon

[Phillip Huff]

Our health and hygiene policy is focussed on food safety, which in the company's opinion trumps all else. We only allow single banded rings (no stones) and recommend, but do not require, employees to remove them in the production area. We allow people to have medical alert necklaces but they must be enclosed in the production coveralls at all times and production supervisors must be informed. No other jewelry is allowed.

Here is a question that has not affected us directly in Cowboy country Alberta, and more for my own curiosity - what about employees wearing turbans and hair nets? All employees in the entire packaging plant are required to wear hairnets as the only thing on their head however has anyone come across issues with employees wearing turbans and hairnets?

[YongYM]

Dear Phillip:



Just to share with you that the similar situation happens to us where most of our worker are Malay (Muslim ladies) wearing the ‘tudung’ (scarf-like cloth) to cover their hairs as Islamic Law forbid the exposure of hairs. Initially, special exemption has been given to the Malay ladies in which we allow them to wear only bright-coloured ‘tudung’ without hairnet.



Later, our consultant highlighted to us that it was not very uniform as other workers at the same working area have to wear the hairnets. Then, we change our policy and want all the workers at the processing area to wear the hairnet and it looks fantastically nice (FYI, they are working in an air-conditioned area, so not objection from the worker).

[Charles.C]

Dear All,

Actually, many of these interesting situations have appeared in previous theads in this forum, the repetition well demonstrates the difficulty in achieving a uniformly satisfactory requirement for situations where personal rights, ethnic, religious factors are involved.
Another thread touched on the documented occurrences of subsequent food contamination – it is seemingly close to zero in US where worker’s facial jewelry in food service restaurants was the issue.
I can offer one more example to the current collection, a recent BRC audit in Europe faulted a typical inspector’s work uniform since buttons were used.

I’m not entirely convinced that all the driving force is dictated by purely food safety concerns, the diligence issue may not be so critical in some parts of the world but it certainly is in UK and I presume also in US / Canada.

Rgds / Charles.C

[Justin]

 Jewellery_Policy.doc   134KB   379 downloads

The attached may be of help, just re-jig.

Regards,

Steve

Very nice I like it. I will like to use it on our site, may I also make a suggestion to have one for cell phones. We have a problem in that they are everywhere and uncontrolled. People have them stolen from their lockers so we have allowed them to keep them in their persons as a concession and this idea would help in that respect. It may dicourage them to bring them to work unless absolutely necessary.

[Simon]

Very nice I like it. I will like to use it on our site, may I also make a suggestion to have one for cell phones. We have a problem in that they are everywhere and uncontrolled. People have them stolen from their lockers so we have allowed them to keep them in their persons as a concession and this idea would help in that respect. It may dicourage them to bring them to work unless absolutely necessary.

I HATE MOBILE PHONES. OK I feel better now. People are so attached to their mobile phone, it is almost an extension of their body. I suggest you get a bank of very small lockers for personal items such as money, jewellery, mobile phones, cigarettes, newspapers etc. Put the lockers in a place where they can be viewed at all times. Maybe even on the factory floor. Then if anyone brings a personal item to their workplace you are well within your rights to shoot them.

Simon

[Charles.C]

Dear Simon,

If by factory floor, you mean within the processing area, I think the auditors will be after you Tonto.
However I do agree it is a real issue, even more so on days where government lottery results come out. Presumably one option is to have uniforms with no pockets and a ban on suspended objects

rgds / Charles.C

[Simon]

If by factory floor, you mean within the processing area, I think the auditors will be after you Tonto.
However I do agree it is a real issue, even more so on days where government lottery results come out. Presumably one option is to have uniforms with no pockets and a ban on suspended objects

Maybe so Charles, what about if the lockers were well away from the processing area and there were clear rules in place that operators had to go direct from locker out of production area and on return to production direct to lockers before work area. I don't see a problem if managed well, mind you I'm not an auditor.

Regards,
Simon

[Charles.C]

Dear Simon,

Still trying to work out what that means but if i were an auditor, would give NC for procrastination.

Rgds / Charles.C

[Simon]

Dear Simon,

Still trying to work out what that means but if i were an auditor, would give NC for procrastination.

Rgds / Charles.C

I'm usually quite good at blinding auditors with BS; failing that a looooooooooooong lunch, now how do you fancy that Charles?

Simon