Compulsary Occupational Health Screening

Hi Lynn, didn't expect feedback although I had already received a dismissive response from a corporate collegue who was concerned that it all appeared a bit too "touchy feely" and that seamed to scare him and that I did find interesting if not a little sad to say the least.

Yet without voluntary transitional leadership in HR or self-modification of corporate mind-set toward Human Resources as something more than facilties management enabling them to be seen as 'people' rather than bits of kit the friendly fire behind the current levels of collateral damage to those resources will result in the Amercan insurers strict liability insurance "Compliance" culture coming over here quicker than Barry already thinks......

Well-Notes gone live and Equity Bill passed House of Lords and NHS already wondering how it is going to fund mental health if costs are predicted to quadruple by 2026 !

Which is why we dont want it here!

Hello

In the US if your lifestyle clashes with the employers benefits scheme, IE if they provide health insurance you cannot smoke, ski, ride motorcycles or cycles.
You change your lifestyle or find another job.

Barry

Hello Nigel ~ many thanks for your response. Yes, this is the Great British Public we speak of here and we know evolution takes a very long time !!!

However, there are pockets of some really good practice which hearten me: one of my Mindful Employer members saved a life (of an employee) by responding in a humane way to a crisis; and did not see it as just good job retention or employee engagement; on the back of that experience they decided to go further and start E&D and mental health awareness type training for all staff.

It is all about reciprocity and unfortunately our society don't know a lot about that at the moment ~ I have hope :)

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

The employer can't enforce these tests.

However if there are clear health and safety reasons for the health assessment and the employees refuse, and there are no other options open, then the employer could terminate their employment.

The key point here is that the employer must be able to justify the health assessment.

It would appear from the list that the health assessment would be complex, so unless the employer is using a specialist occupational health practitioner for advice and assessment it is unlikely that they could prove that their approach is reasonable. This information should not be passed to management or HR as they would not have the expertise to understand its relevance.

With you Carole - clear let alone strict checks & balances need to be in place before health screening takes the step or two toward DNA screening and the culture of solely the beutifull healthy people work here.

I'm genuinely pleased to hear that Bezz passed with flying colours it's just not something the majority of people would volunteer for without a high degree of anxiety as they already believe or know that they are more likely 'fit to drop' than 'fit for purpose' let alone feeling guilty about the unreported stressors and/or milder illness resulting in periods of "presenteeism" when they should really be off sick but fear the consequences of discovery.

Diversity is not just about those obviously disabled in some way or form requiring reasonable adjustments but about the spectrum and breadth of human resources functionality and ability to perform perfectly well regardless of how close or far away they may be from a stereotypically narrow vision of the "norms" in terms of shape, hieght, width, health, personality or how excentric they may be as still a fine line between genius and the sort of moon-struck.

Health screening will therefore have to be a "two way street" where employers will also have to be "screened" audited and risk assessed and if necessary issued with ASBO's where they fail to meet a basic set of "givens" in terms of conditions and culture before solely the unfit or sick employee to blame for persevering with a self-destructive life-style.................

Bezz - Its not paranoia.......once you open up flood gates allowing an employer the right to do a compulsory health check or gain medical records it will follow that insurance companies, pension companies and just about anyone else will also want their hands on this information. How are you going to feel when you try to get life insurance or health insurance or you need to get PPI or anything else. It will ripple down and before you know where you are people wont be able to get a mortgage because they cant get a life insurance policy.etc
Your Data Protection was fought for and Acts were put in place for your protection. The Medical Records Act is one such Act. Why do you want to be so ready to give it up?
I want to protect my privacy and records and I do not see it as a right for my employer to have it as a right because they do not own me. If I am not performing in my role or need adjustments and there is a need for some sort of medical report then that is a different kettle of fish. Or if I am offered a private health screening through my employer which is sent to my GP but NOT sent to my employer because it has nothing to do with my role or performance, than again that is another matter. But what was being advocated by Richard when he started this thread as I understand it was a compulsory medical examination and report, which as far as I am concerned unless the employee has an IMPLIED term in their contract stating that this is a necessary part of their role and they have agreed to it, I do not believe it can be enforced - and neither should it be.

This has nothing to do with the NHS versus a private health check, this is a sneaky way of getting information that they are not entitled to and I suspect then using it inappropriately.

MY thoughts on the above -Paranoya - if the NHS are too slow to give people health checks then use the oportunity to see if a health problem can be detected and advice on how to get it treated, I was with an organisation that did it and it was pleasing to be told I was in good health and that my blood pressure was in the right direction and my colestarol was within safe limits etc etc
If an employer uses this info as a means of dismissing anyone it could be taken to a tribunal and all the evidence used against the employer

To my knowledge we all have a duty to our employer not to do things (e.g. drink too much the night before using dangerous machinery) which will damage the business. If we do not adhere to this then we lay ourselves open to warnings. However, in some US companies it seems they do spot checks to employee's homes to investigate if they secretly smoke (having stated they are a non-smoker in contract).
It seems that common sense rules need to be applied here, that employers should keep thir distance from employees lifestyle, unless there is some appreciable damage done to the business. Following which retrospective measures can be taken - to prevent future occurrence.
Intrusive health screening is that one straw too much for the [employee] camel to bear. Fattism, for example, is against the law and lifestyle coaching - effectively calling someone "Fatty" - surely must fall foul of this.

Welcome Lynn, as for sure employees sense of anything other than being a "bit of kit" or human resource depends on "belonging", inclusion in and feelings of engagement in the business of their employer, critical to any sense of loyalty and job satisfaction let alone performance and producitivty.

Nevertheless, it is going to take a significant change in mind-set, time and transformation leadership for the fear-based compliance model of performance management to be modified toward people centred approach in order for human resources to benefit from a more parental culture.

As routine implimentation of planned maintenance let alone breakdown recovery policies commonly only used for production line equipment, facilities and/or asset management, even if, the corporate world has now sort of tokenistically accepted that the people are their most valuable asset.

Thanks for your contribution just not sure that without Richards Lightfoots company signing up to the Charter and even then not sure it will provide any comfort for those "feeling" at risk in a potentially preditory and expedient management culture where some redudancies will be necessarilty be coming regardless in the forseeable future if contracts not replaced.

This is a slippery slope. I still cannot see how any company can force any employee to take part in any medical unless it is a H & S matter or to comply with some legal requirements such as pilots, drivers etc. As for compulsory Lifestyle advice, that is just a joke.....are you suggesting you are going to be able to dismiss somebody because they refused to take advice on their lifestyle!
Coming now to the "Implied contractual term" - can somebody suggest to me what possible clause could be in a contract that could imply somebody would be forced to take part in a medical examination against their will.
What would be the point of having the Medical Records Act if companies were going to start spouting "implied contractual terms" .
Can you imagine the consequences if this started to happen - where would these medical records start to be used once in the hands of employers? Passed on to the next potential employer along with a referance? Used to stop somebody getting a Pension or insurance or paying out on Income protection. This really is a slippery slope and needs to be resisted by us all.

Hello, I work for a secondary mental health NHS Trust, providing vocational suppiort to people with severe enduring mental health issues.

My understanding of the Fit Note, and all Dame Carol Black's work for Health Work and wellbeing is not to get rid of people in the workplace but to retain people !!

Surely it is to do all we can to maintain people in the workplace in a reciprocal way, that is employer and employee taking responsibility, and tackle stigma and discrimination along the way by opening up the dialogue about certain medical issues, especially mental health.

So, if the conversation can start with the GP about fitness for work, and any adaptations/adjustments that may be necessary, then it can only be a good thing. For a start a GP will get a better insight into how people manage their conditions themselves (in a social model way rather than a medical model way), which in turn will help employers (who are merely people themselves !)
to understand that it might not actually cost much to maintain a person in their workplace: it might just be some time for discussion; using existing trusted networks within the building; being flexible about time off at stressful periods etc.

With Access To Work monies more than doubling, then cost should not be an issue for employers, with an appreciation by DWP that simple things like paying for taxis to get people to and from work if they can't face public transport or get out of the house; paying for therapies that can't be found within the NHS if a client needs extra support to get by etc, are going to keep people in work, rather than exclude them or get rid of them.

I understand your members may be seeing the sticky end of employment law, but i see the equally nasty end of people trying to stay in work, and even harder, actually enter the workplace whilst valiantly living a life challenged by health issues.

I am lead for the Mindful Employer initiative in Kent and we have a piece of work in progress to engage the employees of each of the members. We have devised a quesionnaire which is driven by the Human Givens ethos, and uses the words 'feelings' and 'mental wellbeing' for the first time. The employer members owned up to saying they are not a little scared of doing this, but it is the first step to true engagement, by changing language and honestly stating, "You know what? Our business needs to flourish, and we need you to flourish to make that happen. What can we do ...."

Oooh James, simples'ss they are just making 'it', your health a risk factor, as per their duty of care in law and a condition of employment as you need protecting from "any forseeable risk" of harm or injury preventable.

If, some director is gonna potentially end up part of our secure estate behind bars :

Then, they are gonna protect themselves by benchmarking your health to make sure they have a contribuotury neglegence defence because you had an undiclosed possibly pre-existing illness and were unfit to perform whateveeer task and failed in your responsibilities to report your incapacity and or something in your medical history. (Just a claiming from an insurance co under a perminent health contract)

Anyway, back to "well-note" and what diverse range constitutes "fit for work" including disability and how wide is that definition and does it mean fitter or less fit than before you had time off sick with some condition or injury in the first place and whether or not that could be blamed on work-related chain of causation !!!

Compulsory benchmarking of your health coming for everyone .........

James. I work for an aerospace company, we have OH monitoring, some to comply with aerospace requirements (certain visual acuity tests), some from a health surveilance perspective (Lung function, audio, HAVS, skin etc) to comply with H&S. Advice is also given (Lifestyle, BMI, urine etc). As some of these are down to legislative requirements, OH monitoring can be an Implied contractual term, which have not specifically been agreed but are none the less contractual.

I don't see how the company can insist that the employee does anything, unless there is a clause in the contract.

I also do not see the benefit. Dismiss someone for any of:
• Height
• Weight
• Body Mass Index
• Blood Pressure
• Pulse
• Urine analysis
• Review of noise exposure, past and present hearing problems, Audiometry test (Conducted in an audiometry booth)
• Lung function
• Vision Screen
• Colour Vision test (where required)
• Musculo-skeletal review and assessment, particularly for Upper Limb and Spine disorders
• Skin Assessment
• Lifestyle advice

and you are likely to face a discrimination (most for disabiity discrimination, some for other forms of of discrimination, i.e. height direct sex discrimination).

The minimum is a week for every year they have worked or thats my understanding.They would also have to add into that any carried over AL if they have been on LTS.
Some companies will make a gift on top of the statutory requirement of a small lump sum but it depends on the company, size and policies in place. This is sometimes accompanied by compromise agreements which will also have a lump sum agreement.This is to stop an employee from taking the company to court later.

Richard, again you have to look at the contracts as I dont think you can force any employee to have a medical examination unless it was for H&S part of their JD. Just suddenly walking into the office and saying everyone has to turn up for compulsory medical examinations is simply not good enough unless that is what they have agreed to when joining the company. Without specific details its difficult but the fact that you have said you have not done it historically suggests it is not a H & S issue. If it helps I would not agree to it thats for sure!

Richard

If someone refuses an OH assessment, the company will have to decide for themselves without the benefit of OH advice. This is rarely in the interests of the employee.

The OH assessment should be relevant and I would expect the advice to be evidence-based. The first aim should be to identify those who would be unsafe at work, either putting themselves or others at significant risk. The second aim should be to identify those likely to have a significant capability problem that could affect their efficiency at work. The third aim is to identify appropriate adjustments to enable the employee to work safely and efficiently. If unsafe or inefficient, and no adjustments can be made, then there may be no option other than dismissal. It is likely that anyone who is unsafe or inefficient will meet the criteria for 'disability' under the DDA, so the employer would have to clearly demonstrate why the only adjustments possible are not reasonable.

My compnay wants to dismis someone of the grounds of medical capability. The employee has worked for the company for over 10 years. Is there a minimum statutory payment that we need to make and if so, what is it?

Thank you for the response Carole. It is much appreciated.

Medical Reports aside, where do we stand on employee refusal, regarding the physical examinations proposed. These are to be carried out by an external Occupational Health Physician. Surely we do have a requirement, to ensure all our employees are fit and able to conduct there duties safely, and can require this, even if this has not been the case historically?

Yo Carole, welcome and thank you Richard for your post as this will, no doubt, become a common thread over the coming year as we approach 2011 and Equity Bill apart from other occupational ealth benchmarking applicants stuff etc.

You have implied that health screening policies pre-existing just not implimented until "coincidently NOW" when a number of contracts coming to an end and quit reasonably without specific reassurances your people are making an obvious connection between end of contracts and security of employment...

For sure time to check out small print in contracts, whateveer you are being asked to sign now or in the future and, of course, data protection issues !!!!

Information on medical records is covered by the Access to Medical Reports Act 1988 and as such ALL your staff would have to consent in writing to release of their medical history and any other medical information and reports.

Medical information is released to a medical professional like a OHA/P who then advises a manager on the contents without divulging specific information which is confidential.

If you are suggesting that this medical information is going to be sent straight to non medical personal I would suggest this is highly inappropriate 1. because they are not trained to understand the relevance of what is being presented to them and 2. because of the suggestion of bias.

Perhaps I have misunderstood but what your company does indeed seem to be suggesting is filtering out those that they find do not meet their "medical" criteria and that as you suggest would indeed be illegal and discriminatory.

If employees refuse to co-operate you cannot terminate their contracts unless it is already a requirement that they provide this information as part of their contracts. Some how I dont think it is and there I think is your answer.

Our organisation's upper management has recently organised a program of health screening for all employees.

All line managers have been instructed to advise employees that this screening process is compulsory, and involves the following:-

• Review of previous occupational, family, personnel medical history and evaluation in comparison to job risks
• Height
• Weight
• Body Mass Index
• Blood Pressure
• Pulse
• Urine analysis
• Review of noise exposure, past and present hearing problems, Audiometry test (Conducted in an audiometry booth)
• Lung function
• Vision Screen
• Colour Vision test (where required)
• Musculo-skeletal review and assessment, particularly for Upper Limb and Spine disorders
• Skin Assessment
• Lifestyle advice

Our problem with the above is the companies Occupational Health Surveillance Policy has not been followed previously and many employees were unaware of it's existence. It is widely known that due to certain work contracts ending in under 12 months, redundancies will be made.

There is fear and scepticism throughout the work force that this may be linked, due to it's timing. Of course any use of this information during a redundancy situation would of course be illegal, but it is those same managers who will be making the redundancy decisions who will be receiving the results of each medical.

I have been asked by my staff what rights they have in this instance, weather they really do have to comply to the screening and if the company can make such a thing compulsory.

I would appreciate any guidance on this issue.