Dried-fruit packer: gifts, a consultant, and an unverifiable allegation
You are lead auditor for the stage 2 audit of a family-owned dried-fruit packer with 90 employees and three process areas. On arrival the managing director hands you a 40-page self-completed checklist and says 'just sign it, we've answered everything', then offers a case of premium dates to take home. At 10:00 you discover your auditee guide is also the consultant who wrote the hazard analysis, and between interviews he asks you where he should install a new metal detector in the nut line. At 14:00 a production supervisor tells you off the record that the pest control contractor has not visited for four months. When you request the pest control file, the quality manager says it is held at head office, cannot be retrieved today, and that the supervisor 'has a grudge'. Your plan allowed one day for the three areas; by 15:30 you have covered only two.
1. Identify each threat to the audit principles in this scenario and state the action you take as lead auditor.
Read the worked answer
Treat each element separately; examiners look for the named principle plus a concrete action.
- Integrity and fair presentation. Declining the gift is mandatory; accept it and any later adverse finding looks like a trade. Decline politely, record the offer in the audit notes, and inform the client that findings rest only on verified evidence, not on the completed checklist.
- Independence. The auditee guide wrote the hazard analysis. That is not automatically a threat to the auditor's independence - he is an auditee, not a member of the audit team - but it is a competence/objectivity risk for the audit because he will defend his own work. Ask for the person responsible for the process to answer; keep the consultant in an observer role.
- Consultancy threat. 'Where should I put the metal detector?' is a request for advice that would compromise future impartiality. Refuse: 'I cannot advise on design; I can tell you what the standard requires and what evidence I would expect.' Record the request and the refusal.
- Evidence-based approach. The checklist is a claim, not evidence. Audit the process, the records and the people independently.
- Due professional care and audit time. The plan is no longer achievable. Decide what is highest risk, agree with the client on an extension or a second day, and document the change to the audit plan and the reason. Never compress by skipping the pest control process, which is now a risk area.
2. How should the pest control allegation and the unavailable records be handled, and what would turn this into a nonconformity rather than a note?
Read the worked answer
An anonymous allegation is a lead, not a finding. Corroborate it from three independent directions: interview (the pest control technician, the site supervisor, warehouse staff), observation (bait stations, insect monitors, condition of raw material storage, rodent activity, recent sightings log), and records (service reports, contractor visit log, invoices, corrective actions for pest sightings). If the service reports themselves show a four-month gap, the allegation is confirmed by records, not by the supervisor.
Treat 'the file is at head office and cannot be retrieved today' as an availability question. Agree a specific time - for example, records scanned and sent by 17:00 or produced at a named head-office address the next morning - and record the request in the audit notes. If the organisation cannot demonstrate that the pest control PRP is implemented for the audit period, that is a nonconformity against PRP requirements (clause 8.2), because the requirement is both to implement PRPs and to keep documented information as evidence of implementation (7.5).
Distinguish outcomes: a genuine four-month gap in a contracted pest control programme in a dried-fruit warehouse - a pest-attracting, ready-to-eat product - is significant, and you should consider whether it also casts doubt on the FSMS's ability to deliver intended results. A single missing monthly service report with evidence of an interim visit and no pest activity is a minor.
Finally, ask the quality manager why the supervisor's motive matters. Motive is irrelevant; the evidence is what counts. Note any attempt to discredit the source as a possible interference with evidence gathering.
3. At 15:30 the plan cannot be completed. What options do you have and how do you close out the day properly?
Read the worked answer
You have three legitimate options and one illegitimate one.
- Extend. Agree with the client to add time the next day or a short follow-up; update the audit plan, record who agreed and when. This is preferred where the uncovered area is high risk (pest control, allergen control, traceability).
- Re-prioritise within the remaining time, documenting which planned areas were sampled less and why, and stating this limitation in the report so the certification decision-maker knows what was not covered.
- Reduce scope of the audit only if the client agrees; the scope on the certificate must not exceed what was audited.
- Illegitimate: declaring areas 'covered' because the client says so, or signing off the self-checklist.
Before the closing meeting: summarise evidence gathered, present findings against clauses with objective evidence, give the client the opportunity to provide further evidence (which you then verify), and record disagreements. Report honestly that the sampling of certain processes was limited - an audit that overstates its coverage damages both the client and the certification body.