Employer contacted GP without telling me

ohreally

zzzLazyDaisy beat me to it, discuss prosecuting a grievance with your steward.

Your express consent should have been sought prior to approaching your GP. If its sought in future, be absolutely clear that only the concern up for discussion is being consented to and nothing else.

Some reptile has overstepped a boundry and should be held to account.

nicplymstock

ohreally wrote: »

zzzLazyDaisy beat me to it, discuss prosecuting a grievance with your steward.

Your express consent should have been sought prior to approaching your GP. If its sought in future, be absolutely clear that only the concern up for discussion is being consented to and nothing else.

Some reptile has overstepped a boundry and should be held to account.

Thanks for this- my assistant head said that the county's personnel dept had said the school were within their rights to do this which I think is a bit odd.

Mrs_Chip

I would be very concerned if I was being pressed to provide additional medical information to non-medical individuals - especially if the information does nothing more to explain the circumstances of the absence.

As you have the full backing of your doctor, perhaps you could give consent to access to details relating to your condition knowing that the doctor will only release such information as he deems necessary?

If they take it further based on that I would think it it could be argued that they are harrassing you - as this was of a very personal nature, having any Tom , !!!!!! or Harry knowing intimate details about you could make your working there very uncomfortable.

Jarndyce

As you have involved your union I strongly advise you to heed their advice and not those of random if well-intentioned people on a message board. The union will tell you that the HT has done nothing unlawful but may well have breached some internal policy or other - that is not your concern. As long as your GP did not disclose any information then nothing changes for you.

You need to concentrate on the disciplinary charges you are facing and bleating on that the HT has been unprofessional quite frankly is not going to do you any good as far as that is concerned. The nature of your illness should not need to be disclosed in any of this.

Mrs_Chip

Jarndyce

In your experience, can an individual refuse to answer questions of an intimate medical nature at an informal meeting, expecting that the internal procedures would then be followed (the OH dept gaining consent and getting a report from the GP)?

mariefab

As you've already supplied fit notes and a further letter from your doctor; what reason, if any, have they given for requiring more medical depth?

I would expect the medical details would be considered sensitive data; so employers would normally only be entitled to this if:
The collection of the heath information is necessary to maintain health and safety, or
The collection is needed to prevent discrimination against disabled workers, or
Every member of staff has agreed to the collection.

rising_from_the_ashes

mariefab wrote: »

The collection is needed to prevent discrimination against disabled workers

Which may be the case as the OP has already said she'd be covered by the D&E Act but that her employer isn't aware of this.

However, the HT still shouldn't have done the phoning - your Union will ensure that any irregularities are dealt with appropriately.

zzzLazyDaisy

nicplymstock wrote: »

Thanks for this- the reasons I have given for absence have been supported with GP notes throughout and the letter I gave from him recently explains what I have been through, but it doesn't go into great medical depth. They want more medical depth. This is what I don't get- as my GP said, it isn't their business. That's why they phoned to get 'further information'

In that case they have well and truly overstepped the boundary of what they can and can't do. Sick notes, on their own, do not always provide enough information. For example, the employer may wish to know if it is likely that you will make a full recovery, or whether this is a chronic condition which is likely to recur. They may (should) ask certain questions which will enable them to assess whether your condition comes within the ambit of the Equality Act.

But as someone else has said, often these enquiries will be made by an OH adviser who is independent of the person making the decisions. There is good reason for this - because the decision maker is entitled to rely on the opinion and advice of a qualified expert, without the need to make their own direct enquiry.

Jarndyce

Mrs_Chip wrote: »

Jarndyce

In your experience, can an individual refuse to answer questions of an intimate medical nature at an informal meeting, expecting that the internal procedures would then be followed (the OH dept gaining consent and getting a report from the GP)?

Yes that would be quite reasonable. But my advice above remains crucial - why are you actually on a disciplinary charge? - if you get too wrapped up in this aspect (which you can't do anything about and if it is dealt with won't affect you at all) you will take your eye off the disciplinary ball.

Edit: Sorry - you are not the OP!

Mrs_Chip

If I read the OP correctly, it would seem the disciplinary is based on OPs refusal to discuss the medical nature of their absence.

OP, is that correct or is it to do with the amount of sickness you had (so are they using capability as the reason?)