Rank: Forum user
|
Morning,
I have followed HSG 6 with regards to medical considerations for Lift Truck Operators, and of course I am aware this is guidance and not compulsory, (although would be deemed by the HSE to be doing enough to comply with the law). We have from the guidance produced a medical questionnaire which has been issued with guidance notes to our Lift Truck Operators. However a number of personnal claim the form is intrusive and are refusing to complete the forms, we have only asked that they be completed initially and then every five years until 65 then yearly, also the questions are taken from the guidance notes issued from the HSE.
My question is where do we now stand with pesonnel who refuse to sign the forms. I am fully aware of Section 7 (b), also I believe we are doing everything reasonable with regards to Section 2(2) also Management of Health & Safety At Work Regs Reg 6 & PUWER 1999.
Any thoughs have a missed something ? would you class this as intrusive ? after all an LGV driver would require to carry out a mediacal at forty five and at five yeraly intervals, so what's the difference?
Many thanks
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
phargreaves04 wrote:Morning,
I have followed HSG 6 with regards to medical considerations for Lift Truck Operators, and of course I am aware this is guidance and not compulsory, (although would be deemed by the HSE to be doing enough to comply with the law). We have from the guidance produced a medical questionnaire which has been issued with guidance notes to our Lift Truck Operators. However a number of personnal claim the form is intrusive and are refusing to complete the forms, we have only asked that they be completed initially and then every five years until 65 then yearly, also the questions are taken from the guidance notes issued from the HSE.
My question is where do we now stand with pesonnel who refuse to sign the forms. I am fully aware of Section 7 (b), also I believe we are doing everything reasonable with regards to Section 2(2) also Management of Health & Safety At Work Regs Reg 6 & PUWER 1999.
Any thoughs have a missed something ? would you class this as intrusive ? after all an LGV driver would require to carry out a mediacal at forty five and at five yeraly intervals, so what's the difference?
Many thanks
I went through this process 12 years ago, it wasn't popular but I stuck with it. I'm afraid my findings were that most of those who resisted were unfit to operate FLT's.
Don't forget that people's safety takes precedence over their feelings.
Don't expect many xmas cards this year 'though.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
cheers safety smurf, must admit can't really see the issue here, thankfully it's only the minority.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Also try to get away from using age as a deciding line/bench mark as age alone does not necessarily have any bearing on a persons health nor their fitness so use another mechanism to mange this area. And as already stated stick with it but give/share the 'signing' problem to / with HR
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I suppose it depends to some extent on how intrusive the questions are? Assuming the information is needed to assess people's competence, then that is all there is too it - like it or not. The company are obliged to asses people's competence to ensure their own safety and others. Perhaps this point could be emphasised a bit more.
The only similar experience I can relate to is handing out a company health surveillance form. Some of the guys were a bit reluctant to either complete it or to be honest about any ill health. They were suspicious that it might lead to them losing their job. Given the risk of losing your income or aggravating a health problem, many would choose the latter which is understandable.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Ray ,
The questions relate to diabetes, visual disorders, neurological disorders. Bearing in mind they would be required to report these issues to the DVLA if they were to arise when driving a car. Of course I know operating Lift Trucks is not the same as driving on the public highway, but HSG 6 does state the medical considerations should be regarded the same as the DVLA requirements.
Is it aggravating a health problem or recognising a potential health issue, which could place themselves or another member of staff/public in harms way?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
People are often suspicious of anything that they feel may be used ‘against’ them, and affect their employment prospects, but all employees should be fit to do their work, and depending on the risk there are occasions where health or medical questionnaires and even medical examinations are either reasonable or required. Both questionnaires and examinations are by their very nature, and out of necessity are, and will appear to be, intrusive. If they weren’t, then they probably wouldn’t be very effective.
While doing some work on vibration recently I came across something in L140 (para76) that might be helpful or relevant, in which the guidance suggests “It may be appropriate to include details of health surveillance requirements in your employees’ contracts of employment”.
Before I’m leapt on, I accept that there is a difference between health surveillance and medical checks, but I suggest that a similar approach might in the future be something to bear in mind.
When it comes to medical checks, OH referrals etc, an employee can refuse to have them, but I understand that the employer is then able to base any future decisions on that basis of what information they have available to them. A medical check of some kind, to ensure fitness seems to me to be a reasonably prudent approach by a responsible employer.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Phil,
I did suggest including it in our terms of employment, however still need a way of mopping up the employees we have at present. Think they have gone to their union now, so will hve to suck it and see.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
No worries, just something that I came across in the last week or so. Thought it might be helpful to others as well. It did make me think.
I believe that you can change a contract of employment; with appropriate notice.
I would like to think that most unions would be supportive of any move that was intended to help ensure health and safety.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Bit of a puzzle.
The workers in question have now gone to their union.
I understood that matters which might have a significant impact on their health and safety were subject to consultation. The objective of such consultation would have been to inform workers, or their representatives, about what was proposed and seek their views. This would give an opportunity to identify any problems and seek their agreement to the proposed changes before they were implemented. The consequences of not undertaking health surveillance procedures could have been made clear at that point.
Were the forms agreed by the workers?
Has the union agreed the use of the forms?
Nigel
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
phargreaves04 wrote:Any thoughs have a missed something ? would you class this as intrusive ? after all an LGV driver would require to carry out a mediacal at forty five and at five yeraly intervals, so what's the difference?
I would suggest that there is quite a big difference between a medical carried out by a health practitioner the results of which would be provided solely to DVLA (and, I would suggest, probably in a limited fashion) and a questionnaire completed by an employee and returned to their employer.
I suspect that when the employees say that the questionnaire is "intrusive" what they actually mean is that they are concerned that the contents could be seen by all and sundry. I've recently had a similar issue with medical questionnaires for night workers. Employees had previously returned the questionnaires to their line manager and were concerned about confidentiality. I introduced a system whereby the questionnaires were returned directly to our occupational health provider who then gave us a fit/not-fit indication. If you use an OH provider it would probably be worth having a chat with them about how this could be best managed. I'd also take a look at the Information Commissioners Office guidance here: http://www.ico.gov.uk/up...ut_workers_health_2.html
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Forgot to mention: paragraph 1 of Appendix 2 does state:
Quote:The following notes give advice to occupational health professionals about the
medical fitness of operators of rider-operated lift trucks.
which does suggest that this is a role for OH professionals rather than a "standard" HR/H&S matter (presumably because of the medical confidentiality piece).
|
|
|
|
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.