Neil
I would agree
If an employer has a statutory responsibility to disclose to a Third party
due to the requirement to protect others at risk then the disclosure appears
protected and I assume also overrides their duty of confidentiality on the
employment records. This appears similar to a case where an insured claimant
made threats to shoot the insurers claims handler. The insurance record
showed guns were insured so matter reported to police regardless of the duty
of confidentiality usually afforded to the claimant. I do not believe the
DPA prevents such disclosure, but as Neil points out assessment is case by
case and you need to be sure of your ground, risk must be real not
contrived. Sections 29 and 35 can help in some circumstances. From a
employer perspective perhaps Ian Buckland may like to raise with Olga
Aitken, a personnel lawyer, in his May seminar.
David Wyatt
-----Original Message-----
From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Neil Chadwick
Sent: 01 February 2001 12:30
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Medical history (long)
Here's an interesting one! Although I am looking at this from a local
authority viewpoint I'm sure it raises questions for all. Apologies for it
being a bit lengthy.
If a council employee has his employment terminated on medical grounds (back
problems for example) and is then employed by a contractor who is working on
contracts for the council would the council be in a position to disclose the
person's reason for termination to the new employer.
The reason why the council may wish to do this is the potential safety risk
to
other workers and local residents if the person, for example, suddenly
dropped
something from a height because of his infirmity.
From my limited knowledge of the Health & Safety at Work Act I believe that
if
the council felt there were a definite safety problem it should act
immediately
and not wait while the data subject was informed of a potential disclosure.
I think that conditions 3, 5b and 5d of schedule 2 would apply (Health &
Safety
Act and public interest argument) and conditions 2(1) and 7(1)(b) of
schedule 3,
but this still leaves the "fair" part of the 1st principle and also
principle 2
to consider.
Obviously in these instances we would have to look at the individual case
and
decide on the safety risks of the type of work being carried out and fully
document the decision, but if we get it wrong and the person's new employer
fires him we could be open to a compensation claim.
I would be interested to know how any of you would deal with this situation.
Thanks,
Neil
_____________________________________
Neil Chadwick
Stoke-on-Trent City Council
|