health screening at work

kpwll

Does anyone know what, if any, employee health checks are compulsory if offered by an employer? There is nothing in the employment contract to cover this.
Thank you for any help and information given.

mynameistallulah

More information needed - what kind of screening, what type of work, any nights involved, previous absence/ condition etc?

dickydonkin

kpwll wrote: »

Does anyone know what, if any, employee health checks are compulsory if offered by an employer? There is nothing in the employment contract to cover this.
Thank you for any help and information given.

Are these optional 'health checks' i.e. blood pressure/cholesterol or a 'health surveillance programme' carried out as part of your company's health and safety management system?

It is possible that your workplace exposes you to certain agents that may cause you health problems such as dust, hand arm vibration, chemicals, noise etc, so the employer does have a duty of care (as part of their health and safety monitoring process) to check that staff are not inadvertantly becoming exposed.

It is certainly good practice and depending on the type of exposure, some health surveillance is indeed mandatory by default. In fact for some high risk environments, health surveillance is required to be carried out long after the hazard has been removed.

Workplace health screening can detect if control measures (precautions) that are in place are actually working and if undertaken on a regular basis, can detect any deterioration in a workers health.

As examples, lung function tests for workers in spray booths can detect if they are over exposed to isocyanites. Audiometric testic for workers in noisy environments can determine if noise induced hearing loss or natural deterioration (presbycusis) is occurring.

Screening employees on commencement of employment is also good practice to determine a 'starting point' to compare with subsequent health checks.

As well as the employers duty to monitor their health and safety system (which may require health surveillance), the employee is required by law to 'co-operate' with their employer to enable him to fulfil their statutory obligations.

Furthermore, even if health surveillance is not defined in a contract of employment, the employees requirement to adhere to the employers health and safety requirements certainly will be.

By refusing could possibly be construed as gross misconduct, however - some HR bod could clarify this, but I suspect that may be the case.

Why anyone would not want health surveillance is beyond me, but in this litigious society, I envisage that many more company's will be introducing health screening - not only to protect their workers, but to satisfy insurers and an aid to defend any subsequent claims.

VfM4meplse

dickydonkin wrote: »

Why anyone would not want health surveillance is beyond me, but in this litigious society, I envisage that many more company's will be undertaking health checks - not only to protect their workers, but to satisfy insurers and an aid to defend any subsequent claims.

I agree with most of this post, but can understand the OP's concern. Work-related health surveillance is fine, but generic screening with an onus to disclose to the employer is a problem - I can see unscrupulous employers using an individual's health status as a reason to target for dismissal.

dickydonkin

VfM4meplse wrote: »

I agree with most of this post, but can understand the OP's concern. Work-related health surveillance is fine, but generic screening with an onus to disclose to the employer is a problem - I can see unscrupulous employers using an individual's health status as a reason to target for dismissal.

I don't dispute there are unscrupulous employers out there, however, until the OP comes back and defines what type of health check is being introduced, it will be difficult to provide the answer s/he requires.

If the checks are related to occupational health surveillance, then I suspect there is not a great deal s/he can do about it.

But just to add, I was under the impression that medical details cannot be passed onto the employer without consent (Access to Medical Reports Act) so if that is indeed the case, your argument doesn't hold out.

Emmzi

dickydonkin wrote: »

But just to add, I was under the impression that medical details cannot be passed onto the employer without consent (Access to Medical Reports Act) so if that is indeed the case, your argument doesn't hold out.

Yes, that is correct, permission is needed. Any doctor or nurse "slipping records to the company" would be subject to such severe sanctions it isn't worth the risk.

C_Mababejive

Health screening at work sounds oh so caring and patriarchal. It makes your employer seem caring.

But the truth is it is it can be more likened to a farmer checking his herd and seeing which ones need to go to market.

They are only doing it for their own good.

They also want to build up a history of checks to sideswerve any chance of litigation.

I avoid such checks as much as possible and do not co-operate with them. I dont believe my employer really cares about me. He is simply checking that i am still a productive unit. Id rather keep my health between me and my GP because she has no vested interest.

Emmzi

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Health screening at work sounds oh so caring and patriarchal. It makes your employer seem caring.

But the truth is it is it can be more likened to a farmer checking his herd and seeing which ones need to go to market.

They are only doing it for their own good.

They also want to build up a history of checks to sideswerve any chance of litigation.

I avoid such checks as much as possible and do not co-operate with them. I dont believe my employer really cares about me. He is simply checking that i am still a productive unit. Id rather keep my health between me and my GP because she has no vested interest.

Wow. I would hate to live in a head as paranoid as yours.

dickydonkin

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Health screening at work sounds oh so caring and patriarchal. It makes your employer seem caring.

But the truth is it is it can be more likened to a farmer checking his herd and seeing which ones need to go to market.

They are only doing it for their own good.

They also want to build up a history of checks to sideswerve any chance of litigation.

I avoid such checks as much as possible and do not co-operate with them. I dont believe my employer really cares about me. He is simply checking that i am still a productive unit. Id rather keep my health between me and my GP because she has no vested interest.

As I alluded to earlier, there are certain occupations that will require health surveillance to comply with legislation.

I agree when you mentioned that employers only 'do it for their own good' insomuch that a regular health check could provide early indications of an impending illness, which if caught, treated and controlled will surely benefit both parties - not just the employer.

The employer will indeed benefit due to the fact an illness that may have resulted in lost days off work and all of the additional cost that an employer has to incur may be averted.

The employee (and his/her family) will undoubtedly benefit because they may not have to suffer the hardship caused by loss of work and in extreme cases, loss of life which could have been avoided by early detection of a medical condition.

It's a win win situation for both parties in my opinion as opposed to some hidden agenda by an employer and makes good business sense.

They also want to build up a history of checks to sideswerve any chance of
litigation.

In the situations where screening is carried out where workers are exposed to certain hazards, it is a requirement to do exactly this - not only to protect the workers and monitor safety controls, but it is also a legal requirement.

Would you be critical of a company who stopped health surveillance which could potentially result in workers suffering ill health and breach health & safety regulations?

VfM4meplse

dickydonkin wrote: »

But just to add, I was under the impression that medical details cannot be passed onto the employer without consent (Access to Medical Reports Act) so if that is indeed the case, your argument doesn't hold out.

It does if the employer insists that a consent form / disclosure agreement is signed before screening - not very scrupulous but unfortunately quite possible.

DVardysShadow

Emmzi wrote: »

Wow. I would hate to live in a head as paranoid as yours.

You mean compared to the world you actually live in?