Rank: Forum user 
|
I've recently had a discussion about an employees duty to comply with health surveillance and inoculations etc. Can an employer insist an employee is inoculated for say tetanus and hep B etc and could an employer insist on blood tests etc for health surveilance.
I would expect an employer could ask for breath or urine samples (in the employers time), my point is that an employee could for example have a needle phobia or religious reason for not having a jab and there is always a risk of an adverse reaction. Surveillance is only for the employer to monitor his failure to protect the worker.
Has anyone any views or is there specific legislation relating to an invasive procedure?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
You cannot insist on innoculations. Advise. Yes. Arrange and offer to pay. Yes. But you can't insist. There are many reasons why someone may not want one or be able to have one. Nothing to do with H&S legislation. I would suspect it would revert to someones human right to chose not to have it.
As to insisting on blood tests. I'm not sure if testing for Hep B is one of the ones that you can insist on or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
We had a similar issue a few years back where TU safety reps were pretty insistent that we inoculate the plumbers mainly as they were working with drains and the like. It took us a lot of effort and the inclusion of our senior OH nurse to persuade them otherwise. Basically for us it's down to decent work systems and equipment, PPE and good hygiene practices...All of which is dependent on training and the plumbers of course understanding why they are important.
We were advised at the time that there are very many blood and water borne viruses and pathogens, and it wasn't possible to inoculate against them all even if that was desirable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Clairel, I was thinking more of lead testing for plumbers and MbOCA in polyurethane manufacture etc. Someone said to me that the lead regs say the employee has a duty to co-operate, but I haven't checked, which led (no pun intended) me to believe that the law backed the employer or enabled the employer to prevent the person working with the substance (sacked?). Though the employer has a duty not to expose the worker they can't check if they have.
A broader question on the same subject would be; where would the company stand if a worker refused an inoculation then went on to contract the disease (say fatally to put the cat amongst the pigeons)?
And if the worker took the advice and had a serious adverse reaction to the jab would the employer be liable for the ill effects?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
You pose a number of questions and issues. I suggest that health surveillance and inoculations are 2 quite different things.
Where health surveillance is specifically required (by the way, you SHOULD be reading the appropriate regs - they are FREELY available) or where you have identified that there is a risk of exposure to a substance or other agent, and a verifiable technique exists or testing for exposure, then health surveillance should be offered. While employees do have a duty to co-operate, realistically they can’t be forced to undertake health surveillance. Interestingly enough, the vibration guidance suggests something within the contract to the effect that employees will be required to undertake health surveillance. That is a route that you might consider.
Your latter 2 points are questions of liability (criminal and civil), and that will be established on the individual facts of the case i.e. whether or not the employer had been negligent. As regards the latter, I doubt the employer would be likely to be found liable, unless of course they were found to be negligent in some way; that seems unlikely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Canopener, I read through the relevant parts of the Control of Lead at work regs and it says that employers must carry out health surveillance and employees must co-operate (at risk of significant exposure etc), it doesn't specifically state that employees must submit to blood tests or that the employer can hold them down, rather the regs and ACOP assumes employers will undertake health surveillance, occupational health doctors will order blood tests and employees will co-operate. Which answers part of my original question at least as far as lead goes. Looks to be similar in the COSHH regs for specified substances.
The lead regs are pretty specific as to how far an employee must follow safe systems etc such as personal hygiene etc.
Taking this further I would guess an employee refusing to co-operate (blood tests) would be committing an offence (I doubt a prosecution would follow) and an employer could legitimately terminate employment because an employee could no longer work with lead, of course H & S meets HR.
Does that imply that the employees general duties give the employer more legal leverage regarding the health issues I am asking about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
terrypike wrote:I've recently had a discussion about an employees duty to comply with health surveillance and inoculations etc. Can an employer insist an employee is inoculated for say tetanus and hep B etc and could an employer insist on blood tests etc for health surveilance.
I would expect an employer could ask for breath or urine samples (in the employers time), my point is that an employee could for example have a needle phobia or religious reason for not having a jab and there is always a risk of an adverse reaction. Surveillance is only for the employer to monitor his failure to protect the worker.
Has anyone any views or is there specific legislation relating to an invasive procedure? As to legislation, I understand that there are various criminal laws relating to assault, assault leading to actual bodily harm etc. Which probably takes care of the forcible introduction of a sharp instrument into the body without consent. The employer can ask, but not force. Even at the point of dismissal (or prosecution) a person can refuse. A person can even refuse to submit to a blood/urine/breath-test in relation to driving, which will lead to disqualification BUT they are still able to refuse. It sounds, to me, as if you are on a "fishing expedition" to find some (any) reason to obtain blood, urine, or other samples. I doubt you will find a cooperative doctor who will take blood for any and all testing in relation to employment. I understand that there are various statutory instruments enabling the state to force people to submit to tests, even to the use of firearms to enable that. I doubt that laws relating to persons contaminated by biological or chemical warfare agents are valid in the workplace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
At our place, we advise our employees on induction that we recommend they are inocculated for tetanus explaining the reasoning behind it. That's all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
You are required to undertake health surveillance, you are also required to reduce exposure to substances that are likely to cause damage and therefore require surveillance.
You have no legal right to request a blood test. You have no legal right to insist upon inoculations.
Certain groups within the population, are unable to achieve anti bodies created by inoculation with regards Hep. What would you then do if this person worked for you, redundancy for failure to achieve protection. How many blank cheques do you have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Sorry, will expand on last post.
You have no legal right to insist upon a blood test, outside your legal responsibility for health surveillance. This is because certain surveillance requires the blood level concentrations.This would be a condition of employment and requires the initial test before commencement of employment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
With regards to Tetanus injections, as I understand it from information on the NHS website most people of working age in the UK have had all the Tetanus injections they need through the schemes running when they were at school and do not recommend any further injections unless you are travelling to certain countries abroad.
I may be wrong and am open to challenge on this one.
BTW we do still offer this service but after visits to their GP it was found in most cases not to be necessary to inject the staff further. To save time and money I would check with your local NHS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I have just found this excerpt from the NHS webiste:
Tetanus
Tetanus is a serious infection that affects the body's nervous system, and it can be fatal. Tetanus bacteria are present in soil and manure and can enter the body through a wound or cut.
High-risk areas: tetanus is found throughout the world. Any location where medical attention may not be available if you hurt yourself is considered to be a high risk area.
In the UK, children are vaccinated against tetanus under the childhood vaccination programme. This means that many people in the UK will already be fully vaccinated against tetanus.
A tetanus vaccination is usually recommended for anyone who:
• has not been vaccinated before,
• has not been fully vaccinated (in the UK you should receive five doses of the tetanus vaccine), or
• is travelling to a country with limited medical facilities, and whose last dose of the tetanus vaccine was more than 10 years ago.
The vaccine
Children who are under 10 years of age will receive their tetanus vaccine as part of the childhood vaccination programme.
Children who are 10 years of age, or over, and adults who have never been vaccinated, will need to have three doses of the vaccine, each one month apart. You can have a booster dose 5-10 years after this, followed by a second booster dose after another 10 years, and then you will be protected for life.
Anyone who has not been fully vaccinated (received five doses of the vaccine), or has not had a booster dose in the last 10 years, will need to have a booster dose of the tetanus vaccine
The tetanus vaccine is usually combined with other vaccines, such as diphtheria and polio. The tetanus vaccine is not suitable for infants who are under two months of age.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
JohnMurray, My post came about from a sentence I found in an H & S policy which said "operatives at risk are to be immunised as appropriate" I didn't think it was reasonable and should have said "requested".
I AM on a fishing expedition to clarify exactly what an employer can demand. I would of course expect any medical procedure to be carried out under the advice and control of an appropriate medical practitioner although any procedure at all carries a risk itself, however as MaxPayne posted the safety reps initially insisted on inoculation. Employers can demand all sorts of things from working to a safe system of work, not smoking, levels of alchol to wearing PPE all as required by the employer and effectively enshrining these requirements in law (duty to co-operate)
Section 10(1) (12) of the lead at work regs, seems to clear up the legal requirement of an employee re medical surveillance, not as I though earlier.
"shall, when required by his employer and at the cost of the employer, present himself during his working hours for such medical surveillance procedures as may be required under section 10(1) { blood tests included}"
and as such I would assume leave the employee liable to dismissal for non co-operation.
My concern is that an employer could by way of a policy or safe system of work impose a duty on the employee to submit to a medical procedure for the "protection" of the employee. This could most easily be done prior to employment i.e. no immunisation no job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
There are some circumstances when you can insist on two options - be innoculated or resign. As an example, one country that you may require your workers to travel to has the following on the FCO website "You will need a valid certificate of vaccination against Yellow Fever otherwise you will be inoculated at the airport."
Many other countries will insist on appropriate innoculations, possbly not as draconian as this one which implies that you will be innoculated whether you like it or not!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
In these enlightened times, you may have a pre-employment medical only to find whether the prospective employee can have an employment interview.
Several themes spring to mind, which I have mentioned before.
One of which is that the individual response to a vaccine varies. Ideally, every person vaccinated will gain immunity to the pathogen he/she has been vaccinated against. In the real world some 20% (minimum) or 30% (real) wil not gain immunity, the figures for those who gain PARTIAL immunity are variable. For Hep B that would mean that the three-part (or two in some cases) ordeal will have been for nothing for some people. I won't even mention (well, I will) that some people will have a reaction to the treatment, apart from sore arms. I went through the three-part course twice, and gained NO immunity.
For those who innoculate their staff routinely for flu....recent reports place the figure for immunity at less than 60% gained.....
Another problem will be that some (many) employers will use the inoculation to refrain from workplace hygiene.....easy to do, after all they've "had the jab"
Then there are those on long, or short-term-high-dose steroids....who will display various amounts of reduced immunity.
And those with immune-response-inhibiting disease, like HIV (there are many others)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.