Rank: Forum user
|
Hi all We have a health surveillance program in place with an OH provider for various different teams. One of the gardening team has worked themselves into a state (doesn't like doctors etc.) and is refusing to take part in the surveillance program. I would consider them as a relatively low risk as they do not use vibrating tools/machinery and are not exposed to high noise levels - they mainly work in a greenhouse with hand tools. They would have undergone skin surveillance and spirometry. I know that 'waivers' are generally not worth the paper they are written on, but would something like that be suitable in this situation where they acknowledge the fact that they are not taking part in the OH surveillance? Many thanks
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
You aren't thinking of a waiver but a declaration by the employee they refuse to participate with the companies arrangements for health surveillance. If you want to go down this route they need to self declare each time surveillance is scheduled as you cannot presume they will always have this mind set - a colleague getting skin cancer may change their mind. In the larger scheme of things it could be argued they are refusing to participate with the employers arrangements with respect to health & safety but you have not really identified in the post what activities have derived surveillance to be a necessary control measure merely explained why they are not being monitored for hearing loss and HAV's
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
You aren't thinking of a waiver but a declaration by the employee they refuse to participate with the companies arrangements for health surveillance. If you want to go down this route they need to self declare each time surveillance is scheduled as you cannot presume they will always have this mind set - a colleague getting skin cancer may change their mind. In the larger scheme of things it could be argued they are refusing to participate with the employers arrangements with respect to health & safety but you have not really identified in the post what activities have derived surveillance to be a necessary control measure merely explained why they are not being monitored for hearing loss and HAV's
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
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.