Complaint #017: Complaint Against SAAS Regarding
Accreditation Application Process
Details:
-Slow accreditation application process by SAAS
-Non-systematic in issuing of accreditation certificate by
SAAS
-Accredited: September 2006
-Certification Body: LATU
Details of Complaint:
LATU, an applicant Certification Body complained the SAAS
accreditation process was slow and not systematic in issuing
the accreditation certificate, resulting in damage to the
Certification Body.
Actions Taken:
August 21, 2006: SAI received a letter from LATU
Sistemas SA making a formal complaint about the pace of the
accreditation process of LATU Sistemas which was immediately
acknowledged by SAI. The following provides a review of actions
taken in the accreditation process of LATU:
August 23, 2005: An accreditation application was received
from LATU Sistemas and acknowledged by SAI. The document review
was duly performed and report submitted to SAI on August 26,
2005 – the report was forwarded to LATU on August 29,
2005 requesting further documentation strengthening their
procedures. LATU provided this document to the accreditation
auditor in October, at which time it was reviewed.
October 26, 2005: SAI’s auditor agreed that the documents
received were sufficient, and the accreditation audit was
scheduled for December 2005, but the audit has to be rescheduled
to January 2006 due to auditor illness.
January 18-20, 2006: The LATU office audit in Uruguay took
place, CARs were issued, and the report was forwarded to LATU
on January 27, 2006. Corrective action plans for the CARs
were provided on February 2, 2006, and were accepted, along
with evidence, for closure on February 3, 2006.
February 6-10, 2006: The LATU witness office in Costa Rica
took place, and CARs were issued and closed on February 28,
2006 and the audit report was received from the auditor on
March 8, 2006. The audit report was sent to LATU on June 29,
2006.
March 2, 2006: SAI received further information, as requested,
on Freedom of Association at the witnessed facility from the
SAI team auditor.
April 5, 2006: LATU provided the audit report issued to the
facility and further details about a complaint on Freedom
of Association from the local trade union.
June 7, 2006: SAI further considered the issue of Freedom
of Association at farms in Central America and conferred with
an FOA expert. The finding was that the audit team of LATU
correctly pursued the pattern of investigation and correctly
issued a major CAR on the issue.
June 29, 2006: The LATU package was submitted to the ARP
for consideration. Further details, as requested by the ARP,
were provided by way of an executive summary to the ARP on
July 11, 2006.
August 23, 2006: Final ARP recommendations were received and
a recommendation and package was submitted to SAI’s
President. SAI’s decision to grant accreditation to
LATU and a draft agreement were sent to LATU on September
6, 2006.
SAI acknowledges a delay from the time of closing of LATU’s
CARs until submission to the ARP, due to missing information
on CAR closure. Additionally, SAI felt it was important to
conduct an internal investigation as to whether enough was
done in the oversight of Freedom of Association. The average
length of time from receipt of an accreditation application
to accreditation is 15 months. The amount of time that LATU
was in the application process was 13 months.
The length of time SAI takes in making accreditation decisions
is necessary to ensure proper accreditation audits and processes.
However, SAI strives to keep accreditation applicants informed
and is working to streamline the processes involved in processing
applicant CBs through revision of its procedures and decision-making
structure. SAI’s goal is to be as efficient as possible
in the application process.
|
