PECB ISO-45001-Lead-Auditor Dumps Questions Answers

Clause 0.2 of ISO 45001 emphasizes the involvement of top management and alignment of OH and S objectives with the organization’s OH and S policy.

Nonconformities Identified:

The objectives were developed by an external consultant without involving top management, which undermines leadership accountability and commitment.

The objectives were based on a competitor’s framework, not aligned with the organization’s unique OH and S policy or context.

Analysis of Options:

A. Establishing OH and S objectives did not include top management.True. Clause 5.1 (Leadership) and Clause 6.2 (Objectives) emphasize that top management must be involved in defining and supporting OH and S objectives.

B. OH and S objectives are not being implemented by personnel.Implementation relates to operationalization, not the development phase, and is not relevant to Clause 0.2.

C. OH and S objectives are not maintained as documented information.While documentation is required, the absence of documented information is a separate issue under Clause 7.5, not Clause 0.2.

D. OH and S objectives were not established in alignment with the organization’s OH and S policy.True. Clause 6.2.1 requires objectives to align with the OH and S policy, which reflects the organization’s commitment to safety and health.

E. The consultant has not interpreted ISO 45001 correctly.While possibly true, the issue here is the organization’s failure to involve top management, not the consultant’s interpretation.

F. The organization cannot afford to undertake OH and S objectives all at once.Financial constraints are not relevant to Clause 0.2; objectives can be prioritized for phased implementation.

ISO References:

Clause 0.2: Leadership commitment and alignment with organizational policy.

Clause 5.1: Top management’s role in leadership and participation.

Clause 6.2.1: Establishing OH and S objectives aligned with the policy.

The correct answer is D.

ABC states that it has implemented one single OH and S management system for both plants. Once a single management system covers both sites, the certification body has to determine and audit the scope of the management system being operated, not an artificially narrowed commercial scope. IAF MD 1 says a multi-site organization has a single management system, and the certification body must confirm that a single management system is deployed and determine the scope of the management system being operated. It also says the certification document must reflect the scope of certification and the sites/legal entities covered by that multi-site certification. (IAF)

The argument that XYZ is “just a supplier” does not solve the problem. IAF MD 5 makes an important distinction: where an external provider is only a supplier, the certification body audits the organization’s control of the supplied activity, not the performance of the activity itself. But here, XYZ is not outside the management system; ABC has already said both plants are inside one single OHSMS. So XYZ cannot simply be treated as an external supplier for certification-scoping purposes. (IAF)

This is also consistent with the multi-site certification rules that do not allow an organization to exclude covered sites just to avoid certification consequences. IAF MD 1 explicitly says it is not admissible to exclude a problematic site from scope during certification, and the certification documents must show the sites covered by the certified system. While this example is about a “problematic” site, the principle is the same: once the site is part of the single management system, it cannot be carved out simply for convenience or marketing. (IAF)

Therefore, as a third-party auditor, you should not agree to audit only the food plant while ignoring the packaging plant if both are included in the same ISO 45001 management system.

ISO 45001 Clause 7.2 Competence requires the organization to:

determine the necessary competence of workers that affect or can affect OH and S performance;

ensure workers are competent, including the ability to identify hazards;

where applicable, take actions to acquire and maintain competence and evaluate the effectiveness of those actions; and

retain appropriate documented information as evidence of competence.

Based on that wording, C is clearly correct because the clause explicitly says workers must be competent, including having the ability to identify hazards. If there is no evidence of that ability, this directly supports a nonconformity against Clause 7.2.

F is also correct because Clause 7.2 requires the organization to determine the competence needed for roles and ensure workers meet it. If there is no evidence that workers’ knowledge and skills are assessed against role requirements, the organization cannot demonstrate that competence has been determined and verified.

H is the third correct answer because Clause 7.2 requires the organization to retain documented information as evidence of competence. Attendance on OH and S training is not, by itself, full proof of competence, but the absence of training records can still support a finding that the organization lacks documented evidence related to competence development and maintenance.

Why the others are not Clause 7.2 findings:

A belongs to Clause 7.3 Awareness, which requires awareness of the consequences of not conforming.

B also relates more to Clause 7.3 Awareness, which includes awareness of the ability to remove themselves from imminent and serious danger.

D is also Clause 7.3 Awareness, because workers must understand their contribution to the effectiveness of the OHSMS.

E relates to consultation and participation under Clause 5.4, not competence.

G refers to quality policy and objectives, which are not ISO 45001 OH and S competence requirements.