Graham,
Agree that records necessarily have to be kept. Personal consideration has
caused me to form the opinion that the informed consent will relate to the
degree of information collected/retained and its specific use and
disclosure.
Discussions on this within this force have been about the availability of
detailed sickness information within the force by different management
levels or departments.
It can intially seem odd, but when you consider some of the very sensitive
information coming into organisations about sickness, and how very often the
reporting and recording processes alone cause a wide level of awareness of
that information, never mind subsequent use in such things as normal staff
reports the potential for nervousness and embarrasement becomes apparent.
Recently had one enquiry from a lady concerned that very sensitive personal
information provided by her own doctor might become more widely available
within the organisation and she wanted it destroying. She is progressing
that herself in the first instance, but the organisation will have to
destroy it, and potentially should never have received or been privy to it,
as it was intended for a consultant to write a report.
That one example alone identifies many procedural issues which require
clarification and compliance checking as part of the implementation of the
CoP. Such significant changes are not easy when the responsible staff have
always had the information and have difficulty understanding why things have
to change.
IanW
----- Original Message -----
From: "Graham Hamer" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Ian Welton" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 8:33 AM
Subject: Re: Daily Mail - Sickness Article
> Ian,
>
> The CIPD are clearly concerned about the draft CoP and there was an
article
> on the front page of this week's Personnel Today (dated 16 January). The
> concern is centred on the DPC's suggestion that an employee's explicit
> consent is required to hold details of an employees sickness record. My
> initial reaction was that in order to fulfil their duties as responsible
> employers, organisations need to keep such records. I would therefore
> argue that, while it is important to inform staff that such records are
> kept, explicit consent is not required since an "opt out" would mean the
> person could not be employed.
>
> Graham Hamer
> Registrar & Company Secretary
> Inns of Court School of Law
>
> ----------
> > From: Ian Welton <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Daily Mail - Sickness Article
> > Date: 16 January 2001 18:09
> >
> > Has anybody had any comments or enquiries following the Daily Mail
> article
> > on 16/1/01 entitled:-
> >
> > New rules may give staff a free hand with 'sickies'.
> >
> > To give a flavour the article started - "Employees may soon be able to
> take
> > as many days of sick as they want without the fear that it will be held
> > against them."
> >
> > I think it is abit of a kite flying article which appears to be based on
> the
> > Employer/Employee relationships CoP entry for sickness monitoring.
> >
> > Nothing has emerged in my area yet. Am working on the CoP though and
> would
> > appreciate prior knowledge of how people are thinking about this
section.
> >
> > Ian W.
|