The forklift observation and the supervisor's denial
An auditor is auditing a distribution warehouse with 60 workers, 12 forklifts and three shifts. The audit criteria are ISO 45001 and the site's forklift safety rules. While walking the aisles, the auditor sees a forklift driver holding a mobile phone to his ear and driving without a seatbelt. When the driver notices the auditor, he ends the call and clips on the seatbelt. The shift supervisor says drivers 'never' use phones and that the company has a written policy; he adds that the driver is a good worker and 'probably just had an emergency'. The auditor has 90 minutes left and must still cover maintenance and loading. Reviewing records, there are no forklift incidents for 12 months; telematics data are collected but the auditor is told nobody reviews them. Two other drivers, interviewed separately, say phone use happens 'when the supervisor is not around'.
1. How would you gather sufficient objective evidence about phone use and seatbelt use without over-relying on the single observation?
Read the worked answer
I would treat the single observation as a lead, not a conclusion. I would observe the same area at a different shift or time, sample telematics or dispatch records if available, interview several drivers separately, and review the policy, training, disciplinary records and supervisor checks. I would ask open questions such as 'How are phone calls handled during a shift?' and 'When was the last time you saw someone use a phone while driving?' I would check whether the seatbelt observation is repeated. I would also examine whether the organisation monitors telematics and acts on exceptions. The aim is to decide whether this is an isolated individual act or a breakdown in supervision and monitoring. I would record times, locations, equipment numbers and what was directly observed, and distinguish that from statements.
2. How would you handle the conflicting statements from the supervisor and drivers in the audit report?
Read the worked answer
I would report the direct observation as objective evidence, then report the interviews as corroborating or conflicting evidence. The supervisor's claim that drivers 'never' use phones is contradicted by two drivers and by my observation; I would not treat the supervisor's statement as proof of conformity. I would present the divergence factually: what was seen, what each person said, and what records showed. I would avoid naming individuals unnecessarily in the report or using emotive language. If the evidence indicates a widespread practice, I would raise a nonconformity against the requirement for control of hazardous activities and monitoring. If it is one isolated act, a minor finding or observation may be appropriate. The report should make the basis for the judgement clear.
3. Would you escalate the observation as an immediate risk? Explain your decision and the communication you would make.
Read the worked answer
Phone use while driving a forklift and failure to wear a seatbelt are serious, but I would not automatically stop the audit. I would assess immediacy: is the driver still operating, is there a pattern, and is there a policy and supervision system? I would notify the shift supervisor immediately so the specific behaviour can be corrected, and record the notification. If I saw continuing use or an uncontrolled traffic management risk, I would escalate to the site manager as an immediate danger and request action before continuing. I would not use the audit power to discipline the driver. The communication should be factual, private where possible, and focused on risk, not blame.