Posted By James Perry Morning Folks, Would anyone have any advice on writing a return to work policy for staff returning from absence due to food poisoning, Salmonella and "Sickness and Diarrhoea". As a food factory we obviously have a duty to protect the public as well as our staff, but I'm unsure of a test of "fitness" to return. I'm uneasy about insisting on stool tests from GP's as this may open to gates to our "sickies" gaining extra time off. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks Jim

Posted By simon fuller hi - coming from an eh background it depends on the confirmed illness being suffered by an employee as to the exclusion protocol to be followed. the current advice is exclusion for 48 symptom after the employee is symptom free, however there are some nasty strains of samlonella which still require 3 clear -ve faecal samples (S.paratyphi.) Dependent on the nature of the food being produced the levels of exclusion will need to be matched but it is better to exclude for 48 hrs as a matter of course and then the company will take an HR stance on persistant short term illness and contractual medical screening can assist as part of this. you may not be aware that your local council (EHP) has the ability to formally exclude an employee and then pay average wages to your company, it is quite complicated and most eh depts try and stay clear of it but if you have a genuine +ve this could offset some costs and worth talking to your local ehd. For your information generally in europe its common place for annual faeces / bloods to be taken of all food handlers, it may be worth reviewing the whole exclusion recrutiment policy too see what you could introduce, the use of private gp's to take bloods/ faeces samples after 3 days absence due to gastric illness could assist in curtailing self certification.

Posted By Graham Bryceland I would agree with the last subscriber particularly the information about making a claim on the local coucil where staff are excluded from work. I would also emphasise the importance of getting this policy correct as failure could carry very high penalties, reference the case in the media only this week where a woman received £1.2 million in damages following on from eating a chinese meal where the salmonella infection led to her geting arthritis and being unable to work again. In the food industry better to err on the side of caution and not worry about the additional cost of a few extra days sick leave.