As an audit leader$/$mentor you were assigned to work with a particular team member $($Anna$)$ on a specific customer audit. Many other people like Anna, because she has charisma, is very well$-$spoken and popular. People listen attentively when she speaks, and she is recognized in industry as having a lot of experience. The problem on your audits is that Anna continually arrives late for audits, does not follow the audit programme, and has many personal recommendations. Some complaints have been made that she sometimes appears to smell of alcohol, but you have no proof of this.

Anna was assigned to accompany you on an audit for you to make a definitive recommendation to your manager about the allegations.

When conducting an audit at a wine bottling plant $($which was a particular concern$),$ the following came under your attention:

The receiving staff of the organization have not presented you with a health questionnaire as highlighted in their documentation. The quality manager was not too enthusiastic about the audit although they confirmed receipt of the audit plan. The QM was not available all the time, and claimed that he had an urgent client to attend to$.$ This completely delayed the audit, since the receptionist was not familiar with all the processes even though it was documented that she was identified as a member of the Quality team.

Anna was assigned to do the onsite plant visit and highlighted that employees in the production area were not always wearing their protective clothing, a broken glass bottle was found, and she noted that some staff were wearing jewelry. When she asked the staff if they were allowed to wear jewelry, they replied with, $$we aren$$t ever checked on it although we have a policy$.$ Anna has made an impression on the employees, to the extent that they have highlighted to her that training on the new ISO has not really happened they just signed the attendance register.

You need to consider the case in its entirety, including the auditor behaviour, the audit client and the staff involved. List the factual information in the case study that you are not in agreement with and why. Also, mention the practices that you would commend.