Methinks you have answered your own question! Yes - because it is sensible. Whilst one cannot "forget" statutory reqirements think about the wider picture. Employee has condition, employer doesn't know about it - condition made worse by work. Employee then makes civil claim for compensation. It will be no defence to this civil claim to say: a) there was no statutory requirement to ask employee about medical history b) didn't know about the condition thus not liable Of course employer has to be careful. If candidate admits to history of asthma etc and decision taken not to employ them as paint sprayer in car body shop then they could argue discrimination!! But if they were employed there is greater duty of care to manage risk, ensure they are fully protected etc. Hope this helps Phil

And this from the same regs Information for employees 10. (1) Every employer shall provide his employees with comprehensible and relevant information on— (a)the risks to their health and safety identified by the assessment; . (b)the preventive and protective measures; . (c)the procedures referred to in regulation 8(1)(a) and the measures referred to in regulation 4(2)(a) of the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997; . (d)the identity of those persons nominated by him in accordance with regulation 8(1)(b) and regulation 4(2)(b) of the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997; and . (e)the risks notified to him in accordance with regulation 11(1)(c). . (2) Every employer shall, before employing a child, provide a parent of the child with comprehensible and relevant information on— (a)the risks to his health and safety identified by the assessment; . (b)the preventive and protective measures; and . (c)the risks notified to him in accordance with regulation 11(1)(c).

Thanks to all - very helpful. I think I will go with the slant that if they have a condition that could be made worse by the work enviroment, they should inform us so we can do a specific risk assessment to ensure their H&S Nearly Friday! :-)

Using a well known internet search engine will bring up any number of sample questionnaires...!!! The article below outlines the impact of the Equality Act and sets out the conditions under which employers may legimately seek information about pre-existing conditions. Essentially where they plan/intend/need to alter/amend/modify the working environment to reduce risk. But not where they intend to decide whther to employ!!! http://www.cipd.co.uk/pm...h-questions-2010-08.aspx Phil

As has already been said, it is of course generally in the employee’s best interests to keep their employer informed of any relevant medical conditions. An employers can’t make adjustments (not just those required under EA) if they don’t know about ‘something’ that they need to make an adjustment for. It strikes me that an employer can ask employees to keep them informed of their health/medical status if it is relevant to their job for example we require our drivers to tell us if they have a health condition that could affect their ability to drive; of course arguably they may already have to declare this to DVLA etc. Prior to appointment employers can make a conditional job offer that is subject to the (prospective) recruit completing a health questionnaire and/or undergoing a medical check. Section 60 of the EA allows pre-employment health enquiries for certain specified reasons including where the questions are necessary to establish whether the applicant can carry out a function that is intrinsic to the work concerned. The Explanatory Notes to the Act give the example of an applicant who applies for a job in a warehouse, which requires heavy lifting. As heavy lifting is an intrinsic function of the job, the employer can ask questions about the applicant's health to establish whether or not they are able to do the job. If it subsequently transpires before appointment that the individual has a health condition that is likely to have an impact on the individual's ability to do the job they should seek further advice from either the persons GP or their own Occupational Health advisors. If the condition could amount to a disability under the Equality Act 2010 then employers will need to consider whether or not it can make reasonable adjustments to enable the individual to take up the post be withdrawing the offer. If the employer fails to consider and/or make reasonable adjustments then it may be liable for a successful claim of disability discrimination. Many employees fear telling their employers about health problems because they are concerned about whether this might affect their ability to continue working; and it might. The key to trying to remove this fear is to have a fair and consistent system for assessing health conditions and trying to make adjustments in the short or longer term to try and keep that person in employment. I spend quite a lot of my time trying to do that with a reasonable degree of success, although inevitably sometimes this isn’t possible and employers are entitled to dismiss n the grounds of medical incapability, including those who may be considered to have a disability as defined under EA, if the reasonable adjustment(s) cannot be made.

Technically this may be true but the HSE is not going to prosecute an employee for not disclosing information to their employer. The main driver in this should be the employees own self-interest. I think Canopener’s response #10 sums this up.

the original post asked if the employee should, the law says yes? That could be used as an "encourager" to the employee?

The original question wasn't about "should" they (clearly they should out of self-interest) but about do they "have to". Not the same thing at all!

We are assuming the employee knows their condition will be affected by their work. Would you not ask directly about known conditions that relate to the particular role as you may not want to know about their ingrown toenail. Asking for medical info is a tricky one, my understanding is they have not duty to provide it. You try getting it from Health service providers without employees express permission.

all very interesting and tricky! My original question was "do they have to" as in is it written down anywhere? I had written in my notes with such conviction that they had to that i had the feeling the trainer must have said it was written somewhere. But as it was a few years ago, memory failed me. Agree that if they know they have a condition that can be made worse by the work activites they need to co-operate with employer to review the control measures in place. And yes, it can be worrying and go against them.

I am not sure if this is of any help, or definitive http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pa....aspx?CategoryID=68& As a slight aside, if an employee was being 'performance managed' and there was a potential medical/disability 'element' to this, the employer might rightly seek to ask the employee questions about their health/disability. If the employee does not co-operate (by being forthcoming about any medical conditions or providing consent for an examination etc) then the employer is entitled to make a judgement on the basis of the information that they do have.

John (Murray) I don't think I know enough about this NHS database but my understanding was that data would be made anonymous.... You stated that "The insurance companies will be able to buy their info" Well if they could purcashe data they might - but I'm not sure for what purpose. If the data can be linked to individuals then insurers might buy it for personal lines insurance i.e. life cover (although I doubt it). But I can't see an Employers' Liability insurer purchasing such information. What use would it be? Insurers do not know the names of employees.... and I doubt the EL Compulsory Insurance Act would allow claims to be turned down simply becasue an employee didn't inform their employer of a pre-existing condition that has been made worse by work. Phil

The data is PSEUDonymised. Included in the individual dataset is NHS number, postcode and birth date. As has already happened with hospital data released "into the wild" various insurers referenced the data to data held by a credit reference agency and de-pseudonymised the data to obtain individual information. To date there have been no court appearances. http://www.telegraph.co....ts-sold-to-insurers.html Several people have already pointed out that a worse system could have been devised, but it would be hard work to do! Your faith in the law is touching, coming from a h&s background you should be used to large amounts of organisations ignoring inconvenient legislation. You should note wholesale exemptions from the DPA built into the HSCIC 'constitution'