Disciplinary procedure started over this. Machining error
Discussion
First of all, it's nothing to do with me but I have to give a statement over the job.
Turns out that a guy on the machine tools has made the job wrong. He done the same thing twice on different jobs. He machined them and had them inspected by a fellow machinist who also signed them off as good.
The parts were later found wrong once they had left the factory.
The operator has misunderstood the LSRG dimension. The dimension is taken from the top of the thread. The operator has made the dimension the width at the bottom.
I can see clearly why he has misunderstood that. I can see why he has thought the LSRG dimension would be the intersection point of the radius and angle.
I am utterly amazed that the company is making a huge deal about this. As far as I'm concerned there has been a genuine mistake. A mistake by a person who had never done this type of thread before. Then inspected by another operator who has no experience of these threads either.
They've both misunderstood the same thing it appears to me.
Given half the things that go wrong in our work, I fail to see why this is such a big deal. I guess the embarrassing thing is the job left the factory.
I'll be effectively putting forward the above. Genuine mistake that was more the responsibility of lack of company training and a drawing that could be read wrong.
Am I alone in thinking the action is extremely harsh?
Do others agree why I think the operator has read the drawing wrong?
Any further advice what to put forward in defence would be handy.
Thanks.
Turns out that a guy on the machine tools has made the job wrong. He done the same thing twice on different jobs. He machined them and had them inspected by a fellow machinist who also signed them off as good.
The parts were later found wrong once they had left the factory.
The operator has misunderstood the LSRG dimension. The dimension is taken from the top of the thread. The operator has made the dimension the width at the bottom.
I can see clearly why he has misunderstood that. I can see why he has thought the LSRG dimension would be the intersection point of the radius and angle.
I am utterly amazed that the company is making a huge deal about this. As far as I'm concerned there has been a genuine mistake. A mistake by a person who had never done this type of thread before. Then inspected by another operator who has no experience of these threads either.
They've both misunderstood the same thing it appears to me.
Given half the things that go wrong in our work, I fail to see why this is such a big deal. I guess the embarrassing thing is the job left the factory.
I'll be effectively putting forward the above. Genuine mistake that was more the responsibility of lack of company training and a drawing that could be read wrong.
Am I alone in thinking the action is extremely harsh?
Do others agree why I think the operator has read the drawing wrong?
Any further advice what to put forward in defence would be handy.
Thanks.
king if it's not a regular occurrence. Did he just break up with the HR lady's best friend perhaps?Yes that doesn't warrant a warning. It highlights a lack of training and quality processes in the information it gives its staff. The employer would need to show where they have trained the staff member and that he/she failed to follow process. Depending upon the severity he/she should get a counselling session first and then proceed to written warnings there after.
But and I can't stress this enough, the employer needs to prove that the employee was trained and neglected to follow process. Making a mistake doesn't cut it, however if after training he/she continues to make a mistake then that is a different matter and subject to performance management.
But and I can't stress this enough, the employer needs to prove that the employee was trained and neglected to follow process. Making a mistake doesn't cut it, however if after training he/she continues to make a mistake then that is a different matter and subject to performance management.
hornetrider said:
Are the company trying to appease an angry customer by absolving themselves of blame and laying said blame at the hands of the individual?
That's what I'm thinking at the moment. I've not been told much in advance of tomorrow's investigation, so I'll be more clued up by then.
Worse happens on a regular basis but the main problem does seem to be that the jobs were sent out.
hornetrider said:
Are the company trying to appease an angry customer by absolving themselves of blame and laying said blame at the hands of the individual?
Sounds like the case to me! So, who is getting the disciplinary, the machine operator, the person who quality checked the work and ultimately authorised it to leave the factory or both? Loaded question obviously!The only thing it should end in is a formal process being developed to ensure it doesn't happen again.
If I were the individual, I'd be pissed off and looking to jump ship. From his perspective, he's probably feeling unnecessarily stressed over this. I trust the company realise that they're not just coming across as looking menacing towards an employee.
If I were the individual, I'd be pissed off and looking to jump ship. From his perspective, he's probably feeling unnecessarily stressed over this. I trust the company realise that they're not just coming across as looking menacing towards an employee.
Had a meeting about it today. Not really a great deal has been said or done as the operator who had done the parts refused to attend his meeting.
The questions were posed why this happened.
I expressed my opinion that the drawing could certainly be a bit clearer and define the dimensions better. Too many of the guys aren't doing these threads on a regular basis to be 100% confident what they are doing. To add to that problem their mate checking them have often never done them. So the double check also isn't as stringent as it should be, potentially pointless like it was in this case.
Then the bit that worries me is the proper inspectors only check "critical" parts which this wasn't deemed so. So the only checks it would have had is by two people that weren't fully trained to do the job. Time served machinists but no/little experience in this type of thread.
To me that is nothing short of a recipe for disaster.
Then to top if off the exact same mistake was made not so long ago by another operator.
So the fact it was a known potential issue and they didn't close the door to the situation arising again, I think the company will not more than struggle to begin to justify any action.
It has been an honest mistake made worse by the lack of training and quality control.
The questions were posed why this happened.
I expressed my opinion that the drawing could certainly be a bit clearer and define the dimensions better. Too many of the guys aren't doing these threads on a regular basis to be 100% confident what they are doing. To add to that problem their mate checking them have often never done them. So the double check also isn't as stringent as it should be, potentially pointless like it was in this case.
Then the bit that worries me is the proper inspectors only check "critical" parts which this wasn't deemed so. So the only checks it would have had is by two people that weren't fully trained to do the job. Time served machinists but no/little experience in this type of thread.
To me that is nothing short of a recipe for disaster.
Then to top if off the exact same mistake was made not so long ago by another operator.
So the fact it was a known potential issue and they didn't close the door to the situation arising again, I think the company will not more than struggle to begin to justify any action.
It has been an honest mistake made worse by the lack of training and quality control.
Edited by Driver101 on Tuesday 20th May 22:03
GadgeS3C said:
In which case they should have better drawings, procedures and training.
I'd agree that it isn't a disciplinary unless serious previous.
Drawing is clear enough. If the machinist didn't think it was he should have checked. I'd agree that it isn't a disciplinary unless serious previous.
Having said that formal discipline seems a big over the top unless this is a repeated failure.
Out of interest, he isn't responsible for this is he? http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Sir Fergie said:
I know nothing about these things - but even I (think) I can see where the person who produced the DRAWING messed up????
But I could be wrong???
The drawing is actually correct. But I could be wrong???
However it is a very unusual and unnecessary way of showing the dimension, increasing the probability of someone misreading it.
Which it appears has happened more than once.
Such are the limits of the thread taper(0.01" stand off on 2 inch taper per foot thread), if they dimensioned it to the bottom of the groove, at 45 degree the point at the top could only vary by a few thou.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff