Employer & medication

BIGEYE

My employer has sent out letters to all employees requesting to be made aware when an employee is taking medication at work which has the slightest possibility of affecting ability to carry out duties in a safe manner.
The letter goes on to say that in the case of prescribed medication which could have side effects which could have an impact on work performance, then the individual has to request from their GP for a note confirming that they are considered fit to complete their normal duties including driving a vehicle.
My questions are:

1. Are employers allowed to request this information as it is confidential? I know that they can request access to medical records if permission is given by the employee.
2. If an employee was considered to be at risk due to side effects of prescribed medication, then surely the employee would be signed off and not at work. Am I correct in my thinking here.
3. A play on words, yes. But they have asked about medication taken at work. I am Type 2 diabetic (newly diagnosed, and control by tablets which I take at least an hour before I leave for work, then again when I return home in the evening. So I don't take medication at work.

TELLIT01

A person can be prescribed medication and told not to drive or operate machinery when taking it. They wouldn't necessarily be signed off work because of the medication.
For example - If the person was a professional driver I would expect them to be 'signed off' but not if it was a person who might occasionally drive.
I suspect they are just being cautious in an age when people will make insurance claims at the slightest pretext. If they have requested the information and an employee hasn't told them about something which affects their ability to work, they have covered themselves.

NewShadow

Side-effects of anti-histamines:

Drowsiness
Headache
Dizziness
Agitation
Dry mouth
Blurred vision
Difficulty passing urine
Stomach and gut upsets

tomtontom

If you are diabetic you should advise your employer of this. If you fell ill at work and they were not aware this could delay suitable treatment.

NewShadow, the OP is diabetic, not allergic!

theoretica

BIGEYE wrote: »

The letter goes on to say that in the case of prescribed medication which could have side effects which could have an impact on work performance, then the individual has to request from their GP for a note confirming that they are considered fit to complete their normal duties including driving a vehicle.
My questions are:

1. Are employers allowed to request this information as it is confidential?

They are not asking for full details of what the medication is, simply a note from the doctors saying I have prescribed a medication which has X among its possible side effects but consider my patient fit to continue driving unless he experiences X. Tring to work out what someone has been prescribed, purely because drowsiness is a possible side effect would be a mugs game!

I suspect someone has messed up and they are shutting the stable door!

NewShadow

tomtontom wrote: »

If you are diabetic you should advise your employer of this. If you fell ill at work and they were not aware this could delay suitable treatment.

NewShadow, the OP is diabetic, not allergic!

Disclosing or not disclosing a disability is the OPs choice and s/he should not be directly or indirectly forced into acting against his/her preference.

The employer is asking to be told when any employee is taking any medication that can possibly effect work performance - ANY medication has possible side-effects that could effect performance - including the innocuous paracetamol.

If they are not asking for the employee to tell them when they are suffering side-effects that could effect their performance, but rather when they are taking any medication at all (given any medication could theoretically effect performance), I would suggest that they are requiring the employee to disclose any and all medication taken - which could be considered privileged information.

In effect it can be argued that they're forcing the OP to disclose his/her disability against his/her (assumed) preference in order to comply with a (somewhat pointless) policy - therefore potentially opening themselves up to future discrimination suits.

Takeaway_Addict

NewShadow wrote: »

Disclosing or not disclosing a disability is the OPs choice and s/he should not be directly or indirectly forced into acting against his/her preference.

The employer is asking to be told when any employee is taking any medication that can possibly effect work performance - ANY medication has possible side-effects that could effect performance - including the innocuous paracetamol.

If they are not asking for the employee to tell them when they are suffering side-effects that could effect their performance, but rather when they are taking any medication at all (given any medication could theoretically effect performance), I would suggest that they are requiring the employee to disclose any and all medication taken - which could be considered privileged information.

In effect it can be argued that they're forcing the OP to disclose his/her disability against his/her (assumed) preference in order to comply with a (somewhat pointless) policy - therefore potentially opening themselves up to future discrimination suits.

Maybe but if they don't disclose it they can't claim disability discrimination down the line for any treatment they feel is unfair.

NewShadow

Which may/will be difficult and stressful to prove...

...if they don't disclose then they may not be unfairly treated in the first place.

The OP can choose to disclose at any point - including as soon as any potential issue may arise.

Another_not_new_user

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

Maybe but if they don't disclose it they can't claim disability discrimination down the line for any treatment they feel is unfair.

And if you don't disclose it and end up dead - not their problem. Alternatively, if you injure or kill someone and claim the effects of a medication you didn't declare - your problem. And potentially YOUR BILL.


The OP has the choice of saying, and making the decisions about workplace risks (if there are any) the employers. Or saying nothing and making the risks THEIRS.


This isn't an unreasonable request. The OP doesn't have to comply. But if they choose not to, and something happens as a direct, or possibly direct, result... expect the litigation to land on you and not the employer.


And no, seriously, if a GP signed someone unfit as a result of potential side effects of legitimate drugs, half the population wouldn't be working. This is about an employer weighing risks and liability FOR THEM. If you are willing to take that risk and liability on yourself - don't tell them.

McKneff

And are the company willing to pay for this 'note' to say 'fit for work'


It will come under 'private' note and will probably cost £20....

System

Can't you just give them the leaflet that's usually in the med box? It lists side effects etc.