Employer wants staff to do medical/pysch evaluations

U

user123456

Guest
My works wants all existing employees to under go a medical and pysch evaluations. I have worked there for over 3 years now and we have been recently taken over by a UK company. There was no medical required to get the job at the start.

There is nothing in the contracts about medicals except they can make you go if you are off sick for a long period.

Question is can we refuse to take the medical? Can the results of said medical be used by HR to dismiss ppl?

Thanks
 
Seems unusual - In particular, the psych evaluations seems extremely unusual. Are there any particular requirements of the jobs that would require employees to be physically and/or mentally fit? I could see a possible justification for psych evaluations for positions such as counsellors, but not for standard office work.

Are you in a union? If so, this might be a good place to start. Or contact the Employment Rights unit of the Dept of Enterprise & Employment for advice.
 
[Sorry, my post overlapped with RainyDay's]

I obviously don’t know anything about your company, what you do, or their track record when it comes to dealing with staff. More importantly I know nothing about the UK company which I presume now call the shots. Bear these points in mind when you consider what I’m going on to say.

I suggest that before you start focussing on the legalities you try to find out what’s behind the medical tests. It may not be something bad necessarily. Personally I’m delighted that airline pilots, train and bus drivers etc are required to undergo medical tests and if I was in the early but curable stages of cancer I’d like to know that too. I worked for an organisation which paid to have staff undergo a comprehensive medical test once every 4 years. 2 of my former colleagues are alive today because the stress test detected that they were in imminent danger of having a heart attack.

In my opinion you need to ask the company what’s behind the tests before you decide what your reaction should be. Bear in mind that if you ultimately find it appropriate to involve an external regulatory agency (such as the Labour Court for example) you will be expected to have raised the matter internally. Talk to your rep if you are in a union otherwise send a small delegation to meet the management people involved. Ideally you should ensure that all staff are of the one mind about the matter. Be calm and polite, but insistent, and document what takes place.

You may be encouraged to know that a company cannot make a material change to your contract without seeking your agreement:-

“Changes to your contract of employment in Ireland can occur due to a change in the law, but otherwise, changes must be agreed between your employer and yourself. Neither party can unilaterally decide to change the contract. The rights of employees and employers regarding changes to contracts are set out under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.”
You’ll find more about this and related matters in http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories

Or your local Citizens Information Centre will have a useful book called something like “Your Employment Rights Explained”. They’ll post it to you if you can’t call in.

Even if you don’t have a written contract, a contract exists purely by virtue of the fact that you are working for an employer. Your statutory rights are fully protected and ‘custom and practice’ covers everything else. That means that if something has been done that way for a while, like going home early on Christmas Eve, a court could decide that that is now part of your contract by ‘custom and practice’.

A useful contact for you is the ‘Employment Rights Information Unit’ of the Dept of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Telephone during normal business hours including lunchtime 01 631 3131 or LoCall 1890 210 615. The website is http://www.entemp.ie/
 
Thanks for all the replies so far.

We were taken over by a well known UK company. We are a non union outfit in that the employer will not talk to a union. The place is run in a climate of fear of HR etc.

It is a run of the mill call center, customer support etc. Nothing out of the ordinary. Thanks for the post on TUPE, but they have not altered our terms and conditions at all since the takeover. Most people are afraid of management/HR and wouldn't say boo to a goose.

The main fear is the findings of these tests could be used to dismiss employees that they think could become a problem later on, eg excessive sick leave etc.

I take it we can say no and they do nothing about?
 
I know some companies have a statement in the sick leave policy that allows them to send employees to a company doctor if the feel they need to. This is normally applied in cases of excessive sick leave. However maybe this request would fall under this policy.

Check your handbook / contract.
 
There is nothing in either contracts or handbooks to cover this. They can only send you to a doctor after 1 months continous sick leave. I don't think blanket testing of the entire staff is covered by this.
 
A friend of mine was in a similar situation recently. He smokes a lot of marijuana, and was very worried he'd lose his nice job because of this. The medical involved no urine/blood tests. It was a silly tap the knees to check the reflexes kind of thing.

I think it would be reasonable to ask your employer what the medical will involve?

I'm with you that this seems really weird/wrong.
 
My husband's company offers a medical exam every couple of years depending on age. We've no problem with this - just not Monday mornings! See a medical test as a perk, can show up things that need to be taken care of. When he was being promoted about 10 years ago he had to have a shrink test him. Some kind of analysis of what type of individual he was. I guess it was to confirm that he wasn't nuts but perhaps someone in HR knows why they do these tests. We got a copy of the report but all I remember was that it didn't really tell you anything and it was about 3 pages long.

Maybe your company wants it's workforce to be fit and healthy and to show them if there are problems that need to be taken care of. I can't see it as a way of being fired.
 
1. When a takeover happens, you cant change the terms of employment ... so what ever is in your contract, will remain your terms of employment.

2. Medical/psyche work both ways ... they can show up abnormalities for both employee and employer ...


If you are an employee with a heart rumour or some unknown disease then I'm sure you will be glad.

If you were an employer and it turned out you had a couple of hannibal lectors in the customer service department, I would like to know that my employer knows about that ... and then might do something about it.


For 95% of people it will have no bearing at all ... as most people are normal and healthy.



Finally, two things ...


1.Dis-ease = not at ease .... these tests may show up people that are not suited to their jobs .... and if that is the case, they are doing damage to their health ... so if that means they end up moving to another job that is suited to them and is better for their health ... would that be useful?

2. You talked about a climate of fear ... if this is a new UK company, then maybe just maybe they could be a great employer and this is the start of them turing out to be a great company. The UK are ahead of us in Ireland in terms of testing, and it will become more of the norm here as times moves on. You never know, things are changing in your company but possibly for the better.
 
You are under no obligation to do this, have they stated reasons for needing this information ?
 
In my view asking someone to submit to a psychological examination is an outrageous invasion of privacy. James99 would seem to have a rather utopian vision of what the reasons are behind this. I would suspect an attempt to remove or pressurise staff they deem not to fit in. Refuse the psych exam completely and refuse the medical exam unless it is private and only you get the results.
 
James99 said:
1.Dis-ease = not at ease .... these tests may show up people that are not suited to their jobs .... and if that is the case, they are doing damage to their health ... so if that means they end up moving to another job that is suited to them and is better for their health ... would that be useful?
Click to expand...
And if the employer chooses to terminate the employment of people 'not suited to their jobs', would that be useful? And if the employer's analysis of the medical/psych reports is a bit over the top in terms of judging suitability to their jobs, would that be useful?
 
Rainy day ... so is better to have somebody in a job that they are not suited to it) ?
In my oppinion ... absolutely not.
Short term they will change jobs. It could be painful and there's the stress of change ... but is that stress more than what they are currently experiencing in a job they dont like doing?
However ... medium to long term ... they will hopefully find something they are suited to ... and be a lot happier with and stay in that role/job for a long time. People only stay at things they are happy with.

We live in a vibrant economy where they are a huge variety of jobs available. Its about finding what you want and they going after it.
Whatever makes you happy.



My point is that psyche and physical evaluations do throw up results for people that are not suited to jobs and it should be acted for the benefit of the individual and possible people in general. (whether that action is taken by the individual or the employer ... who cares if the action is taken by the employer ... if it results in the individual working in a job they are suited to and are happy with, then this is a good result)

But I do agree, there is a chance some employers might take advantage of the situation and try to get rid of people who could be still suited to current employment and its being used as an excuse, but again that depends upon the company involved. I am just saying there are some good uses for psyche and physical examinations.


So for example ... what about the person who is totally introverted and quiet but yet works in a call centre ... do you think they are happy in their job?
So for example ... without giving a specific example ... lets say it was a bus or a rail company and they do a drugs test ... so we dont end up with drivers off their heads on drugs ... I personally feel safer because I know drugs testing has happened, dont you?
So for example ... where results show that somebody is currently under tremendous stress in a management job that they have been promoted but are dealing well with it ... it might help them acknowledge where they are in their lives and help them cope with?


We spend a lot of waking hours at work ... so why should we be miserable at work doing something we arent suited to?


This is my oppinion and you are entitled to yours ... but here's another oppinion ...

To quote Jack Welsh ... arguably one of the greatest CEO's of all time (ie he took over in 1981 at General Electric worth $2 billion and finished 20 years later with a value of $200 billion ...)
" I have only one regret in all my years in business and that is leaving people in jobs that they are not suited to"


Any experience I've had whether psyche tests are used to make a decision, they are used in conjunction with experience gained, education, interview performance etc they should never be used as a single judgement criteria and if done as single criteria, then an employer is being unethical and unfair (unless its a drugs fail)


I will re-interate the sentiment of my comments earlier ... isnt it more useful for the individual to be in a job where they are suited to it, as opposed stressed out of their head doing a job they are not suited to ? (and thus affecting their health, all their relationships, lifestyle ...)
 
James99, I can see your point of view although i don't agree with it. This is not about the individual looking at their job and making their decision - its about somebody else making a judgement (perhaps rightly/ perhaps wrongly) on whether they are suited to the job they are in or not based on a test. - how can properly know a person from a test and if you're jobs dependant on it you are obviously going to answer questions and appear in as positive a manner as possible.

You make it sound very easy to simply give up a job and move on to one where you're happier but i'm afraid its not that easy and for most people it's not the only consideration. People spend years studying at college or on the job to pursue a career in a particular field. it can be quite difficult at first in a new job - the reasons can be varied - its not always because the persons not suited to the work but for example sometimes because of the people they work with- they may not get the support/guidance they would get in another office/company (doing the same work). Even in an existing job - bullying/ overloading of work on one person etc can cause the person to be unhappy but it doesn't mean they are not good at their job. I've also had the experience and so have friends of not liking a job when i start it - feeling stressed or overwhelmed but settling into it and really enjoying it as confidence in what i was doing grew.

Personally the idea of these phycological tests seems to me a convenient way of weeding out people who are different - an excuse to get rid of the person who is not prepared to go with the flow or who maybe who are seen to be a challenge to authority etc.......... - . Perhaps i'm taking this a little too far but it makes me think of the 'Old boys club' and the 'hes not one of us' attitude that you hopped was left behind.
 
On the face if it, this would seem to be a company that applies psychometric tests to prospective employees in the UK to filter out applicants. They take over a new company and are now attempting to apply the same test retrospectively to current employees. This would seem to me to be a highly dubious step. It would be interesting to see any situation where someone took action against an employer alleging a change in attitude/behaviour to them following a psychometric test, as this would seem to be the raison d'etre behind the decision on the part of the call centre management.
 
There is nothing in the original thread that indicates that the tests will benefit the employees. If they were designed to benefit employees, they would be
1) optional
2) introduced with careful communications designed to reassure employees on what is obviously a very sensitive matter.

I don't think Jack Welsh was thinking about the employee's welfare when he announced his only regret.
 
I think Rainy Day, there's many viewpoints on this and I agree with yours ... I think there's an element of big brother about this.
So you are probably right in the point you are trying to get at.

However I still think my view point is valid too ... if it ends up with somebody going to a new job where they are more suited to, well that is a good thing for their welfare in the long run.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top