Employer & medication

Another_not_new_user

McKneff wrote: »

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....

They are not asking whether someone is fit to work. They are asking about medications people take so that they can make a risk assessment. Basic H&S law - the employer is responsible for assessing risk and the employee is responsible for informing the employer about any potential risk. The employer is asking. The employee can lie. And on their own head lies the consequences.

NewShadow

Another_not_new_user wrote: »

And if you don't disclose it and end up dead - not their problem.

That's not my understanding of H&S legislation - If someone in my office has (say) a fit... that person should be treated in exactly the same way by the works first-aiders regardless of if the did or did not disclose they had epilepsy.

Should negative consequences ensue the same investigation should take place regardless of their foreknowledge and the same charges of negligence could be brought - Unless you're suggesting that everyone who ever works in the same site/vicinity of the OP should be aware of his medical history - In the event of an emergency I doubt the first call would be to the HR advisor to check if there's a pre-existing condition... or maybe they could wear some kind of label?

This condition (again epilepsy as an example) may effect their driving at work as that person is required to surrender their license until they've been fit free for at least 6 months, but is not required to tell their employer WHY they don't have a license if they don't want to.

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.

I'm reasonably sure this is not a clear cut case of your problem, your bill. If you are not required to disclose your condition then you are not negligent in not disclosing. Your right to hold privileged information is protected by law.

You should disclose any symptoms that are effecting you immediately and that may have an effect on your work, you may be negligent if you do not - the diabetic saying they need to sit down/ stop and eat something because they feel dizzy - but this is not the same as being required to disclose any and all medications, any and all possible side-effects, and/or any or all disabilities.

I think you're also arguing in the direction that the employer might have liability for both any injuries to the employee and the downstream harm caused by any accident caused by the employee if the employer is aware of the medication?

I would argue that you are correct in part - The employer could always be considered liable for anything that happens under their domain if they can be argued to be responsible and negligent.

Given i have illustrated that every drug has a potential side effect, I'm not sure how you're suggesting the employer can mitigate this responsibility by having a list of these drugs?

Someone in (probably - hopefully) HR would have to make an uneducated judgement (read guess) at the chances of any specific side-effect occurring and carry out an associated risk assessment to change workplace processes accordingly.

Many, many actions they could take could be argued to be unreasonable - for example insisting the epileptic not be permitted to pour boiling water (in case they have a fit and scald themselves or others - as a slightly absurd example).

Or even with my anti-histamines. I've never been told not to drive, not to be responsible for children etc, but rare (with the one's I take) side-effects include drowsiness, dizziness, and agitation. Still want me to babysit?

This isn't an unreasonable request. The OP doesn't have to comply.

It doesn't seem to be a request - it seems to be a company policy.

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.

Accidents are accidents, negligence is negligence. There would have to be a case that the OP could have reasonably known about the effect of the medication - that it was both reasonably predictable and that it could have been avoided.

This should be covered by reporting any symptoms if and when they occur - the same as anyone else taken sick at work.

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.

Completely agree.

NewShadow

Another_not_new_user wrote: »

They are not asking whether someone is fit to work. They are asking about medications people take so that they can make a risk assessment. Basic H&S law - the employer is responsible for assessing risk and the employee is responsible for informing the employer about any potential risk. The employer is asking. The employee can lie. And on their own head lies the consequences.

No they aren't - they're not asking the OP to tell them about 'potential risk' - they're asking the op to disclose privileged information about a possible potential risk.

As I was told in our last project management seminar - there's no such thing as 'potential risk' - it's either an actual risk (in this case medication which is actually effecting the OP) or there isn't.

It's about sensible and proportionate steps we can all take to deal with workplace risks properly.

The alternative is the H&S brigade banning Christmas decorations...

Oh.. and I'm ignoring the bit about feeling that you have to lie at work to protect your right to not disclose a protected characteristic or privileged information.

Another_not_new_user

Sorry the previous two users, I disagree. If I know that the medication I am on may make me unable to use machinery, then it is my responsibility to tell the employer whether or not I think it is affecting me. Because I may not be able to distinguish that fact or not. The simple fact is that basic health and safety in the workplace is partnership. The employer is not being unreasonable in ASKING people to declare their medications. As I said, they don't have to comply. But any subsequent consequences are theirs.


Drugs are not Christmas decorations. If anyone thinks they are, then they seriously haven't looked at a good range of legitimate medical drugs available. And actually I do know what I am talking about because I take a lot (an awful lot) of "those drugs" that an employer might want or need to know about. A good number of the drugs I take are ILLEGAL to sell. For good reason. And I [EMAIL="DON@T"]DON'T[/EMAIL] THINK I have any bad side effects. But if I did, I might not be the first to know. I probably wouldn't be. Which is why there is nothing wrong about an employer ASKING this question. Any employee is entitled, as I said, to refuse to give this information. Provided they are willing to deal with the consequences if necessary. It is still a choice for them. Tell or don't.