Posted By Alexander Falconer Theresa I would be careful of taking such advice The HaSaWA 1974 makes it a legal duty for employees to co-operate with their employers Theresfore if employees refuse to participate in health surviellance = there will be an increasing likelihood of them being able to do their job.

Posted By Teresa Green Apparently it's because the management regs, for example, are all about what the employer must do and not what the employee must do. I would have thought that health & safety legislation would have premacy (is that a real word) but this might not be the case. Going to check it out with our legal advisors anyway. teresa

Posted By Diane Thomason I'd be interested to know whether it is in fact the HRA that allows people to refuse. People do have an existing right (nothing to do with HRA) to refuse to consent to a medical procedure, e.g. vaccination, or anything invasive such as a blood test. People can also decline to allow their GP to be contacted for medical records. Again, they were able to do this long before the HRA. I'd be very interested to hear whether your legal dept. know of any genuine get-out for health surveillance using the HRA, and in particular any case law or precedents within other employers. Surely when HS is legally required (e.g. working with lead), if the employee refused, the employer would be breaking the law - I can't believe the HRA would allow the employee to refuse and yet still have the right to be employed doing that work. Employment law (contract of employment etc) also surely applies?

Posted By John Murgatroyd Many employees are unwilling to undergo any medical inspection because their employer does not keep the information secure, and they are quite right in that respect. Many employers do not keep records secure, and in many cases the information is open to anyone to inspect who knows where it is kept. Just because your company has reason to carry-out medical surveillance on an employee does not mean that every tom dick or harriet in staff have a (or any) right to access the records. It may be that the doctor or health professional may refuse you access to the information. In any case, you have, in many cases, to keep the information available for 40 years....securely. The again, you may be one of the large amount of employers who use the law regarding surveillance to glean information to end the employment of someone....and you wonder why employees regard such procedures with suspicion ! In any case, if the information is available to those who do not have a strict right-to-know, the company would most certainly be in contravention of the data protection act.