 |
 |
Uberrimae fidet = of utmost good faith - this is the principle that underpins a contract that you might have with an insurance company who as I am sure we all know would use fraudulent misrepresentation as a bone fide reason to not pay out on a claim The situation is different with PEQs - there is no duty to disclose There will be some instances where to lie on a PEQ is a crime ie breaks criminal law There are other instances where to the man on the clapham Omnibus it is sesnisble and morally justifiable - ie where discrimination is known to be rife and to declare a disability is tantamount to guarenteeing failure to land a job Kloss' view ( as noted by me in January 2007) is that lying about health is of a different moral dimension to lying for other reasons justifying this by the example I have given above - so her view is that a lie is not a lie is not a lie and that as ever detailed consideration of the individual circumstances produces a better decision than a blamket policy of dismissal for lying Not unreasonalby in my view the police take a dim view about lying about anything and regard this as a primae facia reason not to employ A disabled person looking to be a shelf stacker knowing the odds are stacked against him might be considered differently PEQs are also not compulsory but refusal would be a justifiable reason not to offer the job - illustrating that is an interesting case , Hall vs Dept of Work and Transport - Hall refused to complete a PEQ and/or "medical" and refused consent for the firm to apply for medical information from her GP. She was given the job anyway. The firm then found out she was claiming tax credits for a disability which gave them an effective "constructive knowledge" of the disability. She was shortly dismissed for "rudeness" -it turned out that she had mental health problems and she won her case at ET because they ruled that employer should have explored possibility of adjustments If someone does not disclose a disability on a PEQ that subsequently comes to light then under DDA an employer would have to show that there was a material and substantial reason why that person would not have been taken on irrespective of the lie I have sympathy with that viewpoint. I think I would have a different view if this was a barrister or judge or policeman ... as I expect higher standards of honesty and probity in these groups Mark On 27/10/2007, Frank Oakes <[log in to unmask] > wrote: > > I agree with the comments so far that it should be a management issue but > I disagree that the form should be destroyed and it is no longer relevant. > > I attended a seminar with Diana Kloss a few years ago and she gave an > example of an employee who failed to inform his employer he had a condition > (diabetes) and it came to light quite some time later (I think 2 years) and > even though he was an excellent employee he lied so there was a breakdown of > trust and he was dismissed. It is a bit foggy as the oldtimers gets worse, > but I think the case went to tribunal and he lost on the breach of trust > issue. I hope there is someone out there who has a better memory than me > and can quote Diana chapter and verse. > > Regards > > Frank > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Julie Elwell < [log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] > Sent: Monday, 22 October, 2007 11:31:28 AM > Subject: [OCC-HEALTH] With held medical info on PEQ > > Hello All, > > it has come to my attention that a particular employee, who has been > employed by the company since 2004, has with held medical information on > his PEQ. > > He was booked into see the Company Doctor at the time of employment on > several occasions but failed to attend. Our CMO usually passes employees > fit for employment, but as he hadn't got any medical conditions, he was > passed fit by me. > > The one medical condition, LBP, he has had 2 periods of sickness absence > with, in 2006 and more recently in 2007. According to his medical report > from his GP, he has had this since 2001. > > His other medical condition, VV's, he is off sick with at present with as > he had them operated on this month. Again, he has had these for 5 years, > although the medical report states that they have become more troublesome > over the last 4 months. > > He signed the declaration, part of which states "I understand that if I > have knowingly withheld any relevant information, the company may review > my work position." > > So my question is, what do I do now? Our CMO doesn't feel that he needs > to see him as there isn't any objective. Do I inform his manager that > some information has come to light regarding his medical history without > going into detail? Does it become a managerial problem? > > I would be grateful for your advice. > > Regards > > Julie > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Please remove this footer before replying. > > OCC-HEALTH ARCHIVES: > http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/occ-health.html > > FORTHCOMING CONFERENCES AND EDUCATIONAL EVENTS: > http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/filearea.cgi?LMGT1=OCC-HEALTH > > OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH JOBS > http://OHJobs.drmaze.net <http://ohjobs.drmaze.net/> > > OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH NURSING EDUCATION > http://www.aohne.org.uk > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Please remove this footer before replying. > > OCC-HEALTH ARCHIVES: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/occ-health.html > > FORTHCOMING CONFERENCES AND EDUCATIONAL EVENTS: > http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/filearea.cgi?LMGT1=OCC-HEALTH > > OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH JOBS http://OHJobs.drmaze.net > > OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH NURSING EDUCATION http://www.aohne.org.uk > > -- -- Dr Mark O'Connor Secure On-line pre employment questionnaire and assessments available. For more information and online demonstrations check out https://secure.oconnorandassociates.co.uk/intro.php ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Please remove this footer before replying. OCC-HEALTH ARCHIVES: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/occ-health.html FORTHCOMING CONFERENCES AND EDUCATIONAL EVENTS: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/filearea.cgi?LMGT1=OCC-HEALTH OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH JOBS http://OHJobs.drmaze.net OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH NURSING EDUCATION http://www.aohne.org.uk