Block 3: Occupational Health Management - Section 5 or possibly 4: Medical Fitness Assessment

OHM5 or 4.1: Overview (Should this not be "Concepts", or "definitions"?)

The concept “Inherent Health Requirements””

This is an important term. The Employment Equity Act LINK forbids medical testing unless the occupation has specific inherent requirements, and that the tests used are designed to address the person’s fitness in terms of those “inherent requirements”. These are also known WHERE?  IN THE ACT? (Yes, see next paragraph - EEA, Chapter II, section 7) as the “minimum standards of fitness” for an occupation.

EEA, Chapter II, section 7. Quote: "Medical testing

                (1) Medical testing of an employee is prohibited, unless-

                    (a)            legislation permits or requires the testing; or

                    (b)            it is justifiable in the light of medical facts, employment conditions, social policy, the fair distribution of employee benefits or the inherent requirements of a job."

These "inherent requirements" are the key ingredients that determine medical fitness. They are determined by two factors:

• The specified capabilities that are required of an occupation, as well as the abnormalities that should NOT be present in an employee, for the tasks to be performed safely. Example: For a commercial heavy duty truck driver, capability requirements include minimum visual standards and the use of limbs, whereas abnormalities that should not be present include uncontrolled epilepsy (hypertension, diabetes), etc. 

• The absence of medical problems that increase employee vulnerability to the known and unavoidable hazards.Example: A worker in areas of high heat and humidity (such as underground mining), impaired cardiac function, or the use of medication that impairs thermoregulation would increase the risk of heat stroke.

Hence, “inherent health requirements” are the specified capabilities that are required of an occupation, as well as the abnormalities that must be excluded or should NOT be present in an employee, for the tasks to be performed safely (or to minimise “liability risk” – see above??). 

Where “exposure risks” are present (after attempts to reduce the exposure), the “inherent health requirements” are the absence of medical problems that increase employee vulnerability to the known hazards. Whilst it is incumbent on the employer to reduce or minimise the hazards to which employees are exposed, in certain circumstances there will always remain inherent health and safety risks. This is particularly so in hazardous industries, such as mining.  THIS IS UNCLEAR AND NEEDS AN EXAMPLE OR TWO. WOULD RESPIRATORY IMPAIRMENT OF A CERTAIN DEGREE BE AN EXAMPLE IN MINING?   OR INABILITY TO SWIM IN FISHING OR FEAR OF HEIGHTS IN CONSTRUCTION?  OR UNCONTROLLED EPILEPSY IN DRIVING? See above.

GREG I AM CONFUSED HERE  - THE COID ACT FOR EXAMPLE MAKES NO REFERENCE TO THIS TYPE OF LIABILITY AT ALL. THEY OPERATE IN TERMS OF THE THIN SKULL ARGUMENT.  EG  IF A BOX FALLS ON YOUR HEAD AND YOUR SKULL IS FRACTURED AND ALSO INHERENTLY THIN IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE LIABILITY OF THE EMPLOYER OR FUND IN THIS CASE.  THE EMPLOYEE IS FULLY COMPENSATED.  AS THERE IS NO LEGAL LIABILITY OUTSIDE OF THE COID SYSTEM WHAT LIABILITY DOES YOUR CONCEPT OF LIABILITY RISK REFER TO?   I WONDER IF WE SHOULD JUST TAKE OUT THIS CONCEPT AND SPEAK ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL RISK AND HOST RISK OR SOME SIMILAR CONCEPT.  WE APPROACH THIS THEN FROM THE HEALTH POINT OF VIEW AND NOT THE LIABILITY POINT OF VIEW. (Your comment is well received - see my note in "ohmfit1.htm". Perhaps "Capability Risk"?

 REFERENCES:

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT BOOKMARKS