Retesting, issuing, or pulling a welder's stencil/certification is the responsibility of the inspector or project QC depending on the code you are working to.
The project manager or construction manager should not have any input in these decisions.
An inspector cannot fire a welder, that is the decision of craft supervision after privileges have been revoked.
It has come up in the past that these truths have been challenged by companies I have worked for. They have tried to make me fear legal action from minorities that would claim discrimination after pulling certs for poor quality welds. I have had my job threatened and once one of my inspectors was ambushed in a bar because a pipe fitter failed a weld test. Ain't this a rough business?
I am considering sending a process for certification removal to corporate for incorporation into our company QC manual. It seems to me if the process was formalized resistance from within the company would slack off over time and if properly documented legal action would be a non-issue.
I am thinking of the following:
A document to be signed by project managers (project, construction, engineering) that states the first three sentences of this post. Attached would be contract required code citations to back those statements. This establishes responsibility and authority.
Then the process for certification revocation, I am thinking of a report to include employee number, name, and stencil number complete with photographs of reject-able work or NDT rejection reports. The ammount of rejectable weld that would result in termination would vary by the application (a structural welder would have more allowable than a pipe welder for example) and this would have to be communicated to the welder upon successful completion of their weld test. This documentation would be kept on file with the corporate QC manager in case of a wrongful termination suit.
Has anyone seen a process like this work? What else should be included?
By jarcher 
Date 11-23-2010 17:30
Edited 11-23-2010 17:53
Both AWS, ASME, and I'm assuming API give the inspector the right and to revoke welder qualifications on the basis of poor performance by requiring retesting when necessary. If you have a welder or welders making unacceptable welds an alternative might be to issue a corrective action report on the individuals performance while rejecting and requiring each bad weld to be repaired and brought into compliance. That way you allow the production/project manager the decision whether he wants to fire the welder, retest, or further train him and then retest. At any rate the inspector's responsibility stops at insuring that all welding meets the contract criteria. Its helpful, of course, to be able to produce documentation of the alleged poor performance, such as NDE reports, photos, etc., but that should be part of the routine paperwork for most QC shops. If you talking about a specific form for revocation, a letter is always has more gravitas than a mere form. Where I in such a position I would write the production manager letter informing him that Joe Blow's WPQ for what ever process/positions were being revoked for cause as in the listed documentation and that a corrective action report has been issued against production making them responsible for solving the poor performance of this welder. Personally, if I expected any flack at all over the revocation, I would copy the engineer of record.
The inspector has a responsibility to require retesting when there is reason to question the welder's ability to produce sound welds, such as repeated rejects on a particular weld type. Others, such as the project manager, supervisor, or customer should also be able to require retesting on the same basis, even though the inspector has primary responsibility. The QC manual should only describe the process to the point of removing the welder from the type of welding where his ability is being questioned, performing the retest, and actions taken based on the retest results, such as returning the welder to work if he passes the retest, retraining or removing him from the type of welds that he is having trouble with. Any further personnel actions, such as termination, should not be addressed in a QC manual.
Different situations call for different remedies.
Working as a third party inspector my recommendations are funneled through the owner. The contractor is responsible for the quality of the work produced by his employees. When the rejection rate reaches a level that proves to be too painful for the contractor bear, he pulls the welder off the work and reassigns him to something else. If that fails, the owner informs the contractor that "Little Billy" can no longer weld on the project until he demonstrates to the owners satisfaction he can pass the performance qualification test.
As the TPI on the project I will not test "Little Billy" on the job site unless the owner agrees to pay for the test. He can back charge the contractor if he chooses to do so, but I do not want any financial ties to the contractor. After all, I represent the owner.
The inspector that is part of the contractor or manufacturer's quality control department is in a different position. Each company operates differently. The inspector in some companies has the authority of a divine despot. In other companies the inspector carries little authority and decisions regarding how to handle such problems are part of management level responsibilities.
My opinion in the matter is that the shop inspector should be the eyes and ears of quality control. The inspector reports his findings to management. Management should make the decision of whether the welder's work is unacceptable and requires the welder to be requalified or if the work is so bad the welder should be terminated. In the event the shop inspector is the QC department, the decision should be kicked up one level.
From the vantage point of employer-worker relations, it is best if the process is formalized to minimize the appearance of preferential treatment or discrimination that can result in legal action by the disgruntled employee.
Best regards - Al
The way I have seen it work is that the welder's work is RT'd according to code, and (especially in 31.3) if a welder is not performing, the subsequent MANDITORY RTs will result in cut outs or repairs that become expensive.
In my experience, the cost of repairs "motivates" management to stop an individual from welding.
I see no reason, from my vantage point as a owner-user inspector, for me to ever have to "pull" a cert. If the company wants to pay for the performance and correction of sub-standard work, let them. If you make it an economic decision, management will come around. My company does not want poor welders, and has learned to trust my judgement. I never say "pull his cert", I say "remember how much that last one cost us?" and management does the rest.
I hate to advocate such an attitude, but in the face of ridiculous discrimination threats and companies who WANT to keep poor welders, it may be the best one to protect yourself, failing the implementation of a policy as you have suggested.
As an owner-user inspector, I have found that all cases are easier to argue if you break it down to an economic decision.
I think that your document to be signed is unecessary, because responsibility and authority is established per code the work is performed to. Having a PM sign a document that says, essentially, "I understand the code" may be taken wrong and lead to issues.
Again, don't make the decision yourself. Break it down to economics for management. You can't argue with numbers.
Excellent wisdom!
I see nothing at all wrong with your perspective. It's a pragmatic attitude to advocate.
People on the production end (welders) should be made aware of the impact of rejects to the same extent that management should see it... Sometimes I think the problem is that rework is ignored on both ends.
Thanks Lawrence! It's what I find works the best, and takes away most of the blame, politics and arguing. Most...not all... ;-)
I agree with your statement about both ends understanding the impacts of re-work. We had a TA this year that involved re-work on two vessel nozzles and several large piping systems. It was rather painful, but since then I have had less arguments from management about welding/welder quality issues than ever. I think we paid 2-3x the original cost of the piping affected. THere were welds to cut out, RT to redo (100% RT in the field is rather time consuming=$$$), and re-installation, hydros, on and on.
Opinions can be argued against, numbers cannot.
Thanks again for your input, Lawrence.
I see your point that you need management to back your actions but I don't think placing it the company's QC Manual is the correct place. If your company does in fact have a QC Manual in place, then it should already address the management flow chart that shows who your are directly under. My company produces pressure vessels, tanks, pressure piping and structural steel, and holds a "U", "PP" and "R" Stamps under ASME & NBIC. Our QC Manual shows that I, as QA Manager, am directly under the VP of the company. Therefore any issues that cannot be resolved are taken to him for disposition and still must not supercede applicable Code or client requirements.
<"I have had my job threatened and once one of my inspectors was ambushed in a bar because a pipe fitter failed a weld test. Ain't this a rough business?">
That's why I conceal carry when I'm off jobsite. ;P
what really sucks is when you go out to a job where the previous cwi didn't do his job and signed off
on horrible welds and allowed the contractors to bypass simple procedures such as min preheat, welding outside
in the rain, 100 amps out of parameter from the wps then they think your being a dick for trying to do your job
and to make things worse the previous cwi's work for the same lab you do it's like a lose lose situation.
By Jim Hughes 
Date 12-24-2010 18:56
Edited 12-27-2010 12:37
Spots,
It is at the project management discretion. ASME Sec. IX QW 322.1 and AWS D 1.1 (4.33) say you can pull their certs. Show this to your project team and make your argument about code violation and cost. You have a welder making welds that cause you to question his/her ability to make sound welds. The code gives you the latitude to revoke there certs, but also each non compliant weld costs your company money. No need to add another document. Your back up, is found in the codes.
Jim
