We have an Occupational Health Surveillance program in place which includes audiometry, skin checks, blood/lead (under CLAW), lung function and shift working assessment etc. The OHS issue a standard Consent to Assessment and Treatment form, part of which is the employees' consent to them sending a Fitness Certificate to their employer (no clinical details contained). Given that one of the main reasons for carrying out occupational health surveillance is to ensure that employers are complying with the duties imposed upon them through the various health and safety legislation, e.g. Noise at Work, COSHH, CLAW etc., I believe that a refusal to consent by an employee could be construed as a breach of Section 7 of HSWA regarding co-operation with their employer. I'd like to hear others views/experiences on this topic.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/he...ce/requirement/index.htm "An employee can withhold their consent at any stage of the process and cannot be compelled to proceed. If this is the case then we would advise that the employer makes their best endeavour to persuade the employee to proceed. Failing this then the employee should be clearly informed that Management will have to proceed using only their current knowledge and without any expert medical opinion. This should be clearly documented" http://www.everwelloh.co...d-for-oh-assessment.html

The consent that was refused was specifically related to the of the employer receiving a copy of the Fitness Certificate. If an occupational health assessment is carried out but relative information withheld from the employer because the employee refuses consent, what is the point in carrying out the assessment? If an employer allows an employee to carry on in a post without having any knowledge of their fitness to remain in that post (and potentially putting they and others at risk - the Glasgow bin lorry accident being an example of this), how would this sit with the law?

Maybe it would. It may also breach the legal requirement for "consent must be given voluntarily and freely, without pressure or undue influence being exerted on the person either to accept or refuse treatment"

Place yourself in the employee’s position. A lot of OH monitoring is based upon historical epidemiological data and unfortunately today we have a significant and serious claim culture along with an insurance industry wholly averse to considering anything which is not a zero risk on their balance sheet. Where OH assessment has been made available I have always presented myself for testing – soonest identified / improved clinical outcome. In one employment the driver behind OH testing related to past behaviours in an entirely different industry (printers eating on the job with poor but normal for the time hygiene practice) thanks to which due to using the same substance in an entirely different manner we also endured annual urine checks - the test laboratory fearing claims for possible miss-diagnosis changed its reporting from "all clear" to "abnormal cells present" which became the norm across nearly every test reported. Unfortunately abnormal cells can be naturally present so we descended in to a vicious cycle of employee worry - test, result, GP follow up, incredibly intrusive specialist test including two days medical absence from work thanks to a General Anaesthetic being required, and after 3 - 4 months of anxiety for the employee and their family typically an all clear. From having a reasonable privately funded life assurance monthly cost prior to the testing mentioned above at the first renewal thereafter I was presented with a FIVE FOLD increase in premium just because I had been subject to testing as reported by my GP to the insurer with any and all arguments regarding unrelated industry / all clear result falling on deaf ears at the underwriters. Long gone are the days of a job for life (with its disappearing benefits of a final salary pension and associated life cover) so unfortunately imposition of monitoring may have long term financial impact for the employee which was never considered when the various regulations were written or amended. Consider this with regards to the recent floods underwriters have already identified those addresses that will no longer be insured for buildings, contents and car insurance and those who will have increased premium based solely upon their post code rather than the actual risk presented by current or possible future events.

Interesting post. You can of course threaten the employee with disciplinary action. But that would be use of threats, so the consent gained would be unlawful. So maybe the employee is worried about his/her medical data being spread around, a real concern given the inevitable "I consent to the information being given to third parties" clause..never forgetting that giving consent may also mean your summary care record being an inclusion. So many employers seem to think that any of your personal info should be theirs. All too obviously there is more to this than is being made available.

We’re discussing a similar issue where a member of staff does not want a Hep B vaccination (they just don’t like needles). Our solution is that they do not work with the human blood samples. The vaccination is the last line of defence. We cannot guarantee that the samples will be free of all blood born viruses, so we (and the HSE) recommend people handling the samples are vaccinated. No vaccine, not handling. I’m aware we’re lucky being able to manage like this. I’m not sure how you’d stand if you prevented someone working with lead if they refused to have a blood test. But I tend to go along with Chris Packham, and it’s an HR issue now.