Medical probs and employers

SarEl

Googlewhacker wrote: »

All depends when he did it, if it was pre Oct I think it is, if it was after the job was offered I think it is but if it was asked after Oct and before job offer and not related to his work then I don't think they can

Yes, they still can! The Equality Act prevents an employer asking on the application form or at interview - but as soon as an offer is made they can legally ask, and similarly if someone is asked to fill in a medical form as a new starter. It makes a bit of a hash of the Act, becasue I know full well why people say nothing... but on the other hand, employees are legally obliged to look after their own health and safety and that of others, and failing to disclose a medical condition could put themselves and others at risk.

Googlewhacker

SarEl wrote: »

Yes, they still can! The Equality Act prevents an employer asking on the application form or at interview - but as soon as an offer is made they can legally ask, and similarly if someone is asked to fill in a medical form as a new starter. It makes a bit of a hash of the Act, becasue I know full well why people say nothing... but on the other hand, employees are legally obliged to look after their own health and safety and that of others, and failing to disclose a medical condition could put themselves and others at risk.

Thats what I said.....

Emmzi

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Thats what I said.....

And I agree with both of you :-)

You've started your job lying. That alone would be grounds for me to terminate you during your probationary period. If you don't have trust you don't have anything.

Sambucus_Nigra

Stimpy - you EEdiot!!!

Why oh why would you not declare it? With a disabled badge it actually offers you protection under the DDA.

Sigh.

SarEl

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Thats what I said.....

Sorry - on re-reading it that is what you said - sort of confusingly

SarEl

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Stimpy - you EEdiot!!!

Why oh why would you not declare it? With a disabled badge it actually offers you protection under the DDA.

Sigh.

Or to correct the spelling - eejit. Only the English would include a d and an o

Sambucus_Nigra

SarEl wrote: »

Or to correct the spelling - eejit. Only the English would include a d and an o

No - sorry - that's how Stimpy says it.....not a Ren and Stimpy fan then?

http://www.entertonement.com/clips/fdrbgxhjml--You-fat-bloated-eediotRen-and-Stimpy-John-Kricfalusi-Ren-Hoek-

and I'm not English......eediot!

bluetownbarry

I once had a similar case where I work. New applicant had failed to disclose than a years two quite important illnesses. the person involved had less than a years service and the advice we received from our legal eagles was that as we would have taken the person on had it been disclosed at application and as it made no difference to his ability to do his job, we could not dismiss. The question of trust (by hiding his illnesses) didn't even factor into it.

SarEl

bluetownbarry wrote: »

I once had a similar case where I work. New applicant had failed to disclose than a years two quite important illnesses. the person involved had less than a years service and the advice we received from our legal eagles was that as we would have taken the person on had it been disclosed at application and as it made no difference to his ability to do his job, we could not dismiss. The question of trust (by hiding his illnesses) didn't even factor into it.

Lots of assumptions there though! You do not know that the OP's employers would, or would not, have taken them on if the illnesses had been declared - we don't even know what the OP does. It might be very relevant to the role. And this advice does not get around the requirement in law for an employee to have due regard for their own health and safety and that of others, which may be relevant. The OP asked if they legally have to tell them - and the answer might be yes! We do not know for a fact that it isn't. All of which leaves aside the fact that any potections for disability only apply if the employer has been told or could reasonably be expected to know.

SarEl

bluetownbarry wrote: »

Can't be too specific here, but suffice to say that it's very closely associated with law enforcement. As such, personal integrity is very important. The advice received back from solicitors instructed by our HR was that the illnesses were covered by the DDA. The test they used was "Would you still have employed this person had you known at application?" the answer was 'yes'. As such, they also added that the person was not required to disclose his ailments to us (even though on the med screen form it warns of non-disclosure may result in disciplinary action).

At the end of the day it was just another legal opinion and I'm sure if we approached another 'expert' we would have got an entirely different opinion!

I was more surprised than anyone that the person wasn't binned (more so because they had less than 12 months service), but I've long since learned never to be amazed by decisions made by HR people.

For what it's worth, I can't believe the OP has been so devious. I dare say that after a period of time he will be posting for advice for other disciplinary issues. This clearly demonstrates a very low tolerence for telling the truth!

I don't think the OP has been devious - or at least not in a nasty way. I fully understand why he chose not to disclose - not all employers would care a jot for the legal advice (which actually would be what any decent lawyer would say) and most wouldn't even take any! Employers can make very negative and untrue assumtions about taking on workers with disabilities and so I understand why people choose not to tell. But the problem is that doing so can come back to bite one in the backside at a later stage.