The situation concerns invoicing of an initial certification which can in the same CB follow 2 different routes :
- Registration directly to the CAB: payment of fees for initial and 1st surveillance in one go
- Registration via a training body (with which the CBs has an agreement): payment of fees in 2 steps part before the initial examination, the other part before the 1st surveillance
- The total amount of fees is the same in both cases
One possible interpretation of the case is that these provisions are not acceptable regarding § 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 as they lead to 2 different treatments of the certified person :
- In the first case, the applicant has to pay for the whole process no matter he/she succeeds in the certification or continue to work after the certification
- in the second case, under the same circumstances, the applicant will have paid only a part.
The CBs argues that :
- conformity to § 4.3.3 from the definition of fairness (3.16 fairness : equal opportunity for success provided to each candidate (3.14) in the certification process (3.1)) the CB argues that the difference of invoicing does not affect the opportunity of success
- Conformity to §4.3.4 : the CBs argues that
- The price is the same for all applicants
- The fact that there are 2 steps of invoicing is due to the fact as part of the initial exam can be included in some training financial support (which exist in some cases for helping working persons to go on professional training)
- Each applicant is informed of this possibility and can apply through a training body
Then the question is what interpretation of the 2 above is acceptable regarding (§4.3.3 and § 4.3.4 of the standard).
September 2016
ISO/IEC 17024 states :
4.3.3 : Policies and procedures for certification of persons shall be fair among all applicants, candidates and certified persons.
4.3.4 : Certification shall not be restricted on the grounds of undue financial or other limiting conditions, such as membership of an association or group. The certification body shall not use procedures to unfairly impede or inhibit access by applicants and candidates.
There is no apparent breach of clauses 4.3.3 (the opportunities to be certified are the same by either of the two ways) or 4.3.4 (access is not restricted or limited arbitrarily (unfairly) to a candidate to the detriment of another), as long as both options are available to all and the relationship between the CB and the training organisations meets all other requirements of the standard.