Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Jeannette Lount
I am an OH nurse with a few employees who are apparently refusing to attend for health surveillance for HAVS and audiometry. Company policy states and legislation supports that they should attend yet I appreciate that people have individual rights. I wonder if anyone could advise me of best practice in this field. The business managers are concerned re the health of their employees and potential implications for the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Donaldson
We sometimes have problems with a very few members of staff and post graduate students who do not attend or complete medical surveillance questionnaires.
Our policy is to deregister them for the work they are on. This has the desired effect as their research work is then stopped.
It works for us but it will depend on your type of organisation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dr. Andrew Rankine
I must agree with John Donaldson. If corporate policy states that health surveillance is required for certain activities/jobs (by virtue of Reg 6 of the Management Regs), then employees must co-operate with their employer by attending as required (see HASAWA s7(b))
In practical terms this tends to be a disciplinary matter, and ultimately has to be dealt with as Donaldson has suggested - by suspension until compliance has been gained.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ciaran McAleenan Jeannette If your workers refuse to participate in a company health surveillance plan then they are in breach of their legal duty and in contravention of company policy. In the first instance they would be open to prosecution and in the second they could be disciplined. Ultimately the discipline could be as severe as dismissal, since failure to deal with their the employees actions would leave the management in breach of statutory duty. Your managers have no choice but to take positive action in these situations. Of course people do have individual rights but the exercise of those rights is never without consequence. It is up to the individual to determine whether the consequences are a price worth paying for. However that is the negative response to your question and one that would not win you too many friends. There is a more positive alternative that goes to the heart of why people will refuse to participate in a program that ultimately is about safeguarding their health. It could be fear of the unknown, or the mistaken view that not being told you have a condition means it can’t affect you. Whatever the reason I have to ask what preparatory work was done with the employees before the health surveillance program was introduced? I have been involved with introducing HAVS management into a large construction based organisation over the last few years. The organisation employees upwards of 1000 industrial operatives each of whom use a variety of vibrating work tools on a daily basis. In the early stages we developed a strategy that introduced a range of engineering control measures, modified the purchasing and hire policy, embarked upon vibration monitoring and implemented a health surveillance program. Before the health surveillance program commenced, fully we piloted it with a small group of staff to test it’s efficacy and at the same time we ran a series of awareness seminars for the workers, their immediate line managers and their more senior managers. The awareness seminars, launched by a member of the Board of Directors, explained the problem, the causal effects and detailed the measures the organisation were engaged in to limit, reduce and where possible eliminate the risk of HAVS. Every training session on the use of work equipment reinforces that message. The health surveillance program has been running for 18 months with almost half of the workforce having been through the first stage. To date nobody has refused to participate. The openness of this approach, the evidence of commitment from the very top of the organisation, and the support of the local Health and Safety Executive has gone a long way in ensuring the success of this venture, this far. Feel free to contact me if you want more details. Ciaran mailto: ciaran@confinedspaces.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian Mycroft
I would also agree with all this especialy the point that Ciaran makes about the fear factor. In my previous role as trade union representative, there was a lot of resistance to issues like health surveillance, based on the fear that it may be used to dismiss someone on the grounds that they are no longer fit to do the job. It is always a dilema for trade union safety reps. when the interests of health and safety appear to conflict with industrial relations issues. The only way to remove these barriers is to be completely open and discuss the need for the surveillance, through the health and safety committee where it should not be too difficult to ain the support of the trade union safety reps. if you have them.
However, I now have a question that comes to mind from this issue. What effect, if any, might the Human Rights Act have on issues of this nature. I can foresee that some trade union reps. may try to persue this course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kevin
With reference to human rights we have faced this issue, the union taking us to task by inviting into their workplace their full time official. The result was interesting to say the least.
a)THE EMPLOYER IN COMPLYING WITH HIS STATUTORY DUTY ONLY HAS TO REASONABLE
i.e. a reasonable instruction for those working in a noisy environment would be audiometry testing.
b)THE EMPLOYEE CAN UNDER HUMAN RIGHTS REFUSE TO COMPLY WITH HIS EMPLOYERS REQUEST i.e. I 'm not going for any testing.
The result is simple, if an employee will not co-operate with a reasonable instruction that is necessary for his employer to comply with a statutory duty, he or she may be dismissed. ie you can keep your human rights but this may cost you your jobs!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Frank Neville Johnson
Jeanette
This issue is developing into the old chestnut. 'We have never had a problem before so why should we do anything about it now'. On the one hand it is important to publicise, encourage and educate and this process must, to have any credibility, be actively supported from the top. On the other there is only so much you can do before it becomes cost and time prohibitive. Kevin I think rightly takes the view 'human rights might cost jobs' which is supported by Dr Andrew Rankin with a legal argument and by John who would de-register his students. Ian and Ciaran talk about a 'fear factor' and 'strategy' My experience is that once polarisation sets in for whatever reason, then a great deal of effort is required to rectify the problem unless you have a good legal teem backing up your HR department and a strong nerve for confrontation. A balance is needed but the nuts and bolts of how to solve a particular problem often depend on the receptiveness of individual personalities and peer pressure. You may ultimately have to make a decision about which tool to use, the 'carrot' or the 'stick'.
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jeannette Lount
Thank you all so much for your responses. I am particularly thrilled because you have thrown up all the issues that I was tussling with and confirmed my thoughts. I had offered them tentatively at a rather heated H&S meeting and was shouted down but I will do a little reading around and go back with more confidence! Many thanks - Merry Christmas!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.