Hello, I have a client who is trying to do the right thing and offer Occupational Health checks for working in a noisy & dusty environment so intending to carry out lung function, hearing tests and skin checks as well as general health questionnaire. When I have worked for larger organisations that have had existing employees refuse the checks we got them to sign to say they had declined even though offered. Obviously with new employees you can make a condition in their contract but what advice does anyone have when on 'catch up' and back tracking. I'm talking SME's so its' taken a time persuade them this is the right thing to do. Any advice or previous experience would be appreciated, thanks

Thanks Ron, yes this is identified as necessary after risk assessment but hadn't thought of that angle to "follow reasonable instructions" therefore becoming a requirement or part of their contract. I'm nor sure they would want to go down the disciplinary route but they will have to if they want to comply.

Not really seen needles in use under Occ Health. Hearing screening machine, lung function breath tester, vision chart and maybe a look in the eyes, urine sampling for chemicals from work.

All following explanation of the need for them as a protection requirement - for those being tested and for the company to meet duty of care.

Control the noise and dust.
You cannot force an employee to undergo an invasive, or even a minimally-invasive health examination because you have an unsafe work environment.
Of course, if you discover the employee has health problems, and very likely due to your poor environment control, I expect the carpet will be raised and the broom used?
You can't even ask about a persons health unfairly at interview stage....and don't think if we exit the EU it will improve...the EHR will still apply.
Weird. 21st century and still employers thing they can do what they like to employees.
Better in.

I think he is right about the control of noise and dust, they should be the first steps not to say I don't disagree with Occ health checks I think they are important to ensure that the control measures in place are working. Occ health is very rarely invasive unless you count urine samples. Difficult to understand why employees wouldn't want a health check.

Certainly blood tests were part of our 0cc health programme in the 1970s for blood benzene so it may not be totally out of the question

I've certainly seen loads of needles - lead in blood coming as a requirement of the Control of Lead at Work regs for instance.
However the query is what if an employee refuses - well there may be an alternative test eg urine etc which would need to equally acceptable under whatever regulations / regulatory regime - you might ask for proof of being unable to face needles as there would be additional costs involved in taking different sample matrices for some employees, but could be done in principle for some analytes.
It really comes down to whether or not the test is 'legally required' or not, if it is - well its a legal requirement. If you can eliminate the hazard exposure - then you should already have done / tried that; if you cant - and its a legal requirement - its the LAW!

Wow, just wow are you Union Rep by any chance? (see that's me making an assumption based on little to no evidence).

Firstly, consider when and where health surveillance is required. In this context the first action should be to consult the sixth edition of the ACoP for COSHH which set new conditions where health surveillance becomes mandatory. Start with paragraph 237. Note that even if your organisation has not experienced any skin problems and you are pretty certain you have adequately controlled any relevant exposure if other organisations similar to your have had health issues then health surveillance becomes mandatory.

It is then a duty of the employee to comply. Having discussed the question of refusal with an eminent lawyer in a situation where employees had refused, their view was that in allowing this the employee was conniving at a breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act and that any disclaimer document would not be considered to have any validity were it to come to a prosecution or claim for compensation.

So regardless of the obvious emphasis on controlling exposure health surveillance may be mandatory. If it comes to biological monitoring Dr. Kate Jones at HSL is my first and excellent source of advice and guidance. Except for blood monitoring I have yet to encounter needles being used.

Chris

And I advise that U give a factual report examining the problem e.g. HSWA etc. to HR to handle thereafter as that is what they are paid for