Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Vera Figueiredo  
#1 Posted : 26 September 2025 11:46:51(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Vera Figueiredo

Hello

,I'm seeking advice on handling a specific situation regarding a mandatory health screening for a forklift driver in the UK.

I have an employee who is an experienced forklift driver and has a confirmed diagnosis of COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease).

The Situation:

  1. We conduct yearly health screenings for all our forklift operators, which includes a respiratory to assess fitness 

  2. The employee currently refuses to undergo our company's on-site respiratory test

  3. The employee confirms that he undergoes a full, annual respiratory function test at the hospital as part of his ongoing COPD management

The Question:

Given that we cannot legally force him to take our test:

Can I legally and safely accept his most recent yearly hospital respiratory test results in lieu of the company's screening test, and consequently sign him off as medically fit to operate the forklift?

My Proposed Solution (Seeking Confirmation):

  1. Ask the employee for written consent to share his recent hospital test data with our company's Occupational Health (OH) provider

  2. Have the OH provider review the hospital's spirometry results and the relevant medical reports

  3. Have the OH provider issue a formal "Fit for Work" certificate specifically for the forklift role, based on the external data

Is this the most reasonable and legally defensible course of action under HSE guidelines (and considering the Equality Act 2010)? Are there any specific pitfalls or documentation requirements I should be aware of?

Any professional insight would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Jonny95  
#2 Posted : 26 September 2025 12:37:43(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Jonny95

Hi Vera,

My first thought was simply what’s the main concern here and is it necessary?

Operating a truck with COPD? or diesel exhaust fumes being a trigger? or both? Not something I’d naturally have considered and I'll admit we don't do routine health checks for our FLT drivers, just our night works and van drivers. That being said I’ve had to remove employees from trucks before, but that’s been for things like siezures which is fairly obvious and something DVLA would act on with car licences too for the same obvious reasons. 

That said, I think the agreements you’ve put forward are extremely fair and reasonable if, due to the environment / COPD / workplace and all the other factors, this is justifiable. Honestly, I think most places would just go down the line of “our site, our rules”, and if the employee refused to follow policy and procedure, then that would be the end of the discussion. Said employee would be back to the manual hand pallet truck, so I wouldn’t worry too much about pitfalls.

thanks 1 user thanked Jonny95 for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 26/09/2025(UTC)
A Kurdziel  
#3 Posted : 26 September 2025 12:40:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

A medical diagnosis is different from OH surveillance or medical screening. The first is an examination to establish  what is “wrong “ with a particular person and what treatment they might require. This will not be shared with an employer nor would your OH people be able to accept this diagnosis since they don’t “own” it.  Based on that if your employee is refusing to   accept your screening programme then you have no choice but to sack them as you cannot prove that your work is not  causing ill health except… we are not clear why your FLT drivers are having this test in the first place. Is it a fitness to work test, so that you need to know that they are capable of operating a FLT eg eyesight(which can be corrected  with spectacles) or hearing( which you can do something about) or musculoskeletal issues( which might it make it difficult  for them to drive) etc. Not sure how a lung function tests fits in with this reasoning.

The other reason for the testing is health surveillance ie there is something in the job that is could cause health issues  for the employee and you need to confirm that the controls that you have introduced are actually working. So why are you asking the employee for a lung function test so they can drive a FLT?

stevedm  
#4 Posted : 26 September 2025 12:53:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

 not withstanding any otehr comments....In most cases any assessment is made against the DVLA Medical Guidance Notes...I wouldn't natrually distinguish between OH as the standards and qualification sets are the same...in fact there are extra for OH..

DVLA Guidance (COPD & Driving)

  • Group 1 (car/van): COPD only needs to be reported to DVLA if it causes symptoms that may impair safe control of a vehicle (e.g. severe breathlessness, hypoxia, sudden incapacitation).
  • Group 2 (lorries/buses): Standards are stricter. COPD with resting hypoxia or frequent exacerbations can be disqualifying.
  • Forklift drivers: Forklifts are workplace vehicles, so they are not directly covered by DVLA licensing rules. However, HSE, insurers, and OH commonly reference DVLA Group 2 standards as the benchmark for “safety-critical” workplace vehicle operation (because of the higher risk).

 This means: if his COPD is well-managed, with no hypoxic episodes and no sudden incapacity risk, he may still be fit for forklift operation. But an OH professional should make that judgment using DVLA standards as a guide.

 2. Implications for Your Case

Your proposed pathway still works — but the OH provider must explicitly consider DVLA medical fitness criteria when reviewing the hospital’s spirometry results.

 

So the process becomes:

 Employee consent → allows hospital results to be shared.

  • OH review against DVLA Group 2 criteria → because forklift operation is safety-critical.
  • OH issues “Fit for Work” certificate → stating the assessment was carried out in line with HSE duty of care and DVLA-equivalent standards.

 3. Pitfalls

  • Hospital tests ≠ work fitness test: Hospital spirometry reports confirm disease monitoring, not fitness to operate vehicles. The OH must bridge this gap.
  • Oxygen desaturation: DVLA standards stress risk of hypoxia. If the hospital report doesn’t mention oxygenation or desaturation, OH may need additional evidence.
  • Documentation: Ensure OH explicitly references DVLA Group 2 equivalence in their report — this gives you a defensible position if challenged by HSE, insurers, or a court.
  1. Suggested Wording for Audit Trail

You could note:

“Employee has a long-term respiratory condition (COPD) monitored by hospital specialists. With written consent, relevant clinical test results were referred to Occupational Health. OH reviewed the evidence against DVLA Group 2 medical fitness criteria and confirmed the employee is fit to undertake safety-critical forklift operations. This process ensures compliance with HSWA, HSE guidance, and Equality Act 2010.”

Roundtuit  
#5 Posted : 26 September 2025 13:11:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

I am curious as to how respiratory checks determine the "fitness" of an FLT driver who is presumably sat down most of their working hours? Respiratory checks typically undertaken where the process presents airborne hazards to employees and used to validate the effectiveness of control measures against dust and/or sensitisers.

So long as they are following medical advice and their health is not in free fall (frequent and recurring absence) I am struggling to understand why you need a piece of paper which like an MOT is only valid on date and time of issue.

What is the perceived danger or hazard with someone you currently have driving an FLT continuing to do so?

If they drive to work then they must have notified the DVLA. Suitable for road driving suitable for FLT.

Roundtuit  
#6 Posted : 26 September 2025 13:11:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

I am curious as to how respiratory checks determine the "fitness" of an FLT driver who is presumably sat down most of their working hours? Respiratory checks typically undertaken where the process presents airborne hazards to employees and used to validate the effectiveness of control measures against dust and/or sensitisers.

So long as they are following medical advice and their health is not in free fall (frequent and recurring absence) I am struggling to understand why you need a piece of paper which like an MOT is only valid on date and time of issue.

What is the perceived danger or hazard with someone you currently have driving an FLT continuing to do so?

If they drive to work then they must have notified the DVLA. Suitable for road driving suitable for FLT.

Vera Figueiredo  
#7 Posted : 26 September 2025 13:36:25(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Vera Figueiredo

Thank you all for your feedback.

We are asking the employee for a lung function test because our recent Air Monitoring Assessment results concluded that "operatives in this area are likely to be exposed to significant concentrations of Inhalable Dust—specifically, concentrations greater than 25% of the exposure limit (COSHH Trigger Value, or CTV)". 

Roundtuit  
#8 Posted : 26 September 2025 14:14:42(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Based on that information I would be focusing on controlling the dust that will be making everyone ill.

Roundtuit  
#9 Posted : 26 September 2025 14:14:42(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Based on that information I would be focusing on controlling the dust that will be making everyone ill.

peter gotch  
#10 Posted : 26 September 2025 14:27:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Hi Vera

Your last comment provides some more context and I wonder whether your FIRST step should be about considering whether the CONDITIONS are as safe as reasonably practicable before homing in on and individual worker's fitness to do their job.

I don't think that the idea of a Control Trigger Level is included in legislation or HSE guidance but seems to be a construct by occupational hygienists (a construct that I think has merit), so see e.g. Low-Toxicity-Dusts-and-Good-Control-Practice-11_08_21.pdf

So, in the absence of a specific Workplace Exposure Limit for any particular dust EH40 sets levels of 10mg per metre cubed for inhalable dust and 4mg per metre cubed for respirable dust and EH40 does comment that this automatically "triggers" the application of COSHH.

But then it is case of considering how much BELOW that "trigger" an employer should be thinking about what controls to put in place, with the BOHS paper linked above setting out some of the positions taken by some organisations.

Hence, may be your first step should be to assess what types of dust your workforce are exposed to and whether there are relatively easy ways of further reducing exposure. 

As with many COSHH type scenarios, there are circumstances where you can conclude that you don't have a problem and so don't need to do much, circumstances where you clearly have a problem and need to take action and the ones in the middle where you need the best evidence to help you decide what to do. 

....and you appear to be in that border line zone. May be you need MORE evaluation of the status quo, and detailed consideration of the pros and cons of various options for further mitigation.

thanks 1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
Meganer on 29/09/2025(UTC)
Meganer  
#11 Posted : 29 September 2025 07:55:20(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Meganer

Originally Posted by: peter gotch Go to Quoted Post

Hi Vera

Your last comment provides some more context and I wonder whether your FIRST step should be about considering whether the CONDITIONS are as safe as reasonably practicable before homing in on and individual worker's fitness to do their job.

I don't think that the idea of a Control Trigger Level is included in legislation or HSE guidance but seems to be a construct by occupational hygienists (a construct that I think has merit), so see e.g. Low-Toxicity-Dusts-and-Good-Control-Practice-11_08_21.pdfgeometry dash lite

So, in the absence of a specific Workplace Exposure Limit for any particular dust EH40 sets levels of 10mg per metre cubed for inhalable dust and 4mg per metre cubed for respirable dust and EH40 does comment that this automatically "triggers" the application of COSHH.

But then it is case of considering how much BELOW that "trigger" an employer should be thinking about what controls to put in place, with the BOHS paper linked above setting out some of the positions taken by some organisations.

Hence, may be your first step should be to assess what types of dust your workforce are exposed to and whether there are relatively easy ways of further reducing exposure. 

As with many COSHH type scenarios, there are circumstances where you can conclude that you don't have a problem and so don't need to do much, circumstances where you clearly have a problem and need to take action and the ones in the middle where you need the best evidence to help you decide what to do. 

....and you appear to be in that border line zone. May be you need MORE evaluation of the status quo, and detailed consideration of the pros and cons of various options for further mitigation.

Before focusing on an individual’s fitness for work, the first priority should be evaluating whether conditions are as safe as reasonably practicable. Assessing the type and level of dust exposure, even below WELs, and considering practical control improvements is key. The concept of a Control Trigger Level, while not legally defined, can help guide decision-making in that grey area where exposure isn't clearly safe or unsafe.

A Kurdziel  
#12 Posted : 29 September 2025 08:17:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

Sorry to say this but you seem to have this arse to front. Health  surveillance is not a substitute for  controlling the dust the FLT operators are being exposed to.  PPE is at the bottom of the list of controls. You should be asking the question why there is a  dust issue in your area.  What are they moving about? Are they moving open containers or bags which have been damaged? There is no good reason  for a FLT operator to be exposed hazardous levels of dust. 

Has anyone asked if  the operative with COPD thinks that  his illness is connected the exposure to dust in your workplace? That is what I would worry about!

stevedm  
#13 Posted : 29 September 2025 08:44:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

I am curious as to how respiratory checks determine the "fitness" of an FLT driver who is presumably sat down most of their working hours? Respiratory checks typically undertaken where the process presents airborne hazards to employees and used to validate the effectiveness of control measures against dust and/or sensitisers.

So long as they are following medical advice and their health is not in free fall (frequent and recurring absence) I am struggling to understand why you need a piece of paper which like an MOT is only valid on date and time of issue.

What is the perceived danger or hazard with someone you currently have driving an FLT continuing to do so?

If they drive to work then they must have notified the DVLA. Suitable for road driving suitable for FLT.

That is a good question, let me break it down so that you get a better understanding of the reasons behind it…

Why respiratory checks get linked to FLT drivers?

  • Respiratory checks (spirometry, questionnaires, etc.) are usually tied to health surveillance under COSHH (dusts, fumes, sensitisers) – not the actual role of driving.
  • If an FLT driver’s role includes exposure to dust, exhaust emissions, isocyanates, flour, wood dust, welding fumes, etc., they may get pulled into the surveillance programme.
  • If there are no such exposures, respiratory checks for the driver role alone don’t make much sense.

 “Fitness” in an occupational health sense

  • Employers sometimes ask for “FLT medicals” or “fitness certificates.” These are not a statutory requirement in the same way as, say, an HGV licence medical.
  • HSE guidance says it’s about ensuring someone can operate equipment safely – e.g. no conditions that would cause sudden incapacity (blackouts, severe breathing difficulty, uncontrolled diabetes, epilepsy).
  • For FLT drivers, the biggest concerns are:
    • Ability to see, hear, and react.
    • Not being at risk of sudden loss of consciousness.
    • Being able to sustain alertness and attention.
  • Respiratory function only really becomes relevant if the workplace is physically demanding (climbing, manual handling) or if reduced lung function could increase risk in emergencies (e.g. evacuation from cab in a fire).
    • Although in this example dyspnoea (shortness of breath) is a potential issue to driving the FLT – COPD potentially aggravated by the workplace dust

The “MOT” point you raise

  • You’re right – any assessment is only valid for the day it’s done. Someone could be fit today and unfit tomorrow.
  • What health surveillance and fitness checks actually do is:
    • Create a baseline record of health.
    • Identify early trends (e.g. spirometry picking up declining lung function before symptoms are obvious).
    • Provide evidence that the employer has taken reasonable steps under health and safety law.
  • It’s more about systematic monitoring than a one-off guarantee.

DVLA comparison

  • If someone is fit to hold a driving licence, they are generally fit to operate an FLT – but:
    • DVLA standards apply to road safety, not workplace-specific hazards.
    • An employer has separate duties under COSHH etc to ensure workers are medically fit for the particular environment.
    • For example, someone with moderate asthma might drive fine on the road but could deteriorate badly if exposed to warehouse dusts.

So what’s the actual hazard with letting someone carry on driving?

  • If there are no respiratory exposures, probably none – and the medical adds little.
  • If there are exposures (dusts, fumes, sensitisers), the risk is long-term health deterioration and possible acute attacks while driving.
  • In practice, many companies commission “FLT medicals” more as a liability shield than because HSE mandates them – it demonstrates they’ve considered fitness-to-operate in case of an incident.

thanks 1 user thanked stevedm for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 29/09/2025(UTC)
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.