Rank: Forum user 
|
Pretty sure I know the answer to this one, but before I get embroiled in a debate(!) I wouldn't mind getting a feel for how other practitioners may view this particular scenario:
A work activity on a site controlled by my employer requires those working within to undergo routine health surveillance, this is no problem and is undertaken as required.
Two members of staff from another organisation come to work in our location by way of a mutual agreement as our facility offers them a chance to undertake research work that their employers facility cannot accomodate. Naturally they receive a site induction.
We don't currently provide them with the health surveillance that our employees undergo as we believe it is their employers responsibility.
Question is, are we right??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I'm guessing this is COSHH related
I think the answer is in table 1 of the ACOP & paras 35 ,36
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
I think you are right, however, I would formally inform their employers so that they conduct the health surveillance for them or offer to do it yourself if they cover the costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi
This is a tricky one for me.
I think I'd start by asking their employer if they have any health surveillance system in place.
If not then maybe suggest that they should.
You might find that they're covered. But the question needs to be asked, but then you've opened the can and you've got to do something about it.
If the worst comes to the worst I think you'd have to provide them with health surveillance or deny access.
Although by the sound of it this is not the way your sector functions.
Good luck
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Juan Carlos Arias wrote:I think you are right, however, I would formally inform their employers so that they conduct the health surveillance for them or offer to do it yourself if they cover the costs
Thats what I'd do too
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I believe a duty does exist (see R v Associated Octel Ltd) for the employer as per HSWA s3: "It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety."
There could also be a civil liability but this would depend on the circumstances of any possible claim ie breach of statutory duty/negligence and also DoC pursuant to the Occupiers' Liability Act for premises.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If you undertake HS because of a real need/ law requirement as against having a good working relationship then anybody and everybody inclusive of visitors/students etc working in that same environment need the same HS standards e.g. when working with processed Lead all working with the substance need HS irrespective! Who employs who is another matter but the controller is usually the responsible organisation
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Health surveillance is completely reactive. It is there to show that all of your other control measures are continuing to be effective. These control measures are in place to protect all people who may be exposed to whatever hazard is present. If these 2 colleagues were exposed to this hazard and suffered loss as a result of it your company would in all probability be vicariously liable. Looking at it in those terms you should provide the health surveillance (a) because you are the ones possibly exposing them to the hazard and (b) because you have the wherewithall to do it whereas their employer may not. The question would be what is the nature of the hazard, are its effects likely to be long term or short term and how long will the 2 individuals be working in the area. If the effects of the hazard are felt over the long term and the individuals only work at the facility for a couple of hours would providing heath surveillance be reasonable - probably not. If the effects were felt over a short term and the individuals worked at the facility for 20 years then it would be reasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Just a few thoughts to add to the debate:
1. In connection with health surveillance, the COSHH Regulations only refer to an employee and do not mention others who may be affected by the activity.
2. If you conduct health surveillance on those not employed by you, where do you stand with regard to record keeping? Who keeps the health surveillance records for the next 40 years - you, or those persons' employer?
3. What do you do if one of these persons refuses to undergo the health surveillance? Would you ban them from involvement in the activity? Could this possibly conflict with the terms of any agreement with that person's employer?
4. What would you do if on the initial health assessment you discovered a health problem that was not associated with your operation but was something that had been caused by his or her previous activities, possibly when employed by his current employer?
As a previous posting has stated, health surveillance is reactive. It attempts to determine whether there has been any change in that person's baseline state of health due to the involvement in the activities for which he or she has been employed. So you would need to establish the initial state of health, then monitor at appropriate intervals for change. However, with some health effects, there may be no immediate indication of previous exposures that have triggered damage when you carry out the initial check. Suppose then that the health effect (e.g. irritant contact dermatitis) occurs whilst the person is with you, even though the exposures whilst in your employment are only a minor contributor to the actual health problem? Where would this leave you?
If you feel that health surveillance is appropriate, then I would firstly suggest to that person's employer that they should carry this out. If they are unable to do this, then offer to do this on their behalf (and charge) with any health records becoming their responsibility.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
RayRapp wrote:I believe a duty does exist (see R v Associated Octel Ltd) for the employer as per HSWA s3: "It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety."
There could also be a civil liability but this would depend on the circumstances of any possible claim ie breach of statutory duty/negligence and also DoC pursuant to the Occupiers' Liability Act for premises.
This was my take Ray. Bearing this in mind and the contributions of others, I think I'll contact their employer and talk this through offering the service of surveillance to them and then providing to them the records for their retention. Thanks to all those that replied, very useful
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.