Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

SOS! FSSC22000 Employee Communicable diseases


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 NoLegalMoves

NoLegalMoves

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 3 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

Posted 25 January 2011 - 10:13 PM

I work for a food manufacturer in the US.
We recently had a FSSC 22000 /PAS 220 audit in which the auditor is requiring corrective action because our policy is only to require employees to self report communicable diseases. However in PAS 220 clause 13.5 it states that "
Employees shall undergo a medical examination prior to employment in food contact operations, unless documented hazard or medical assessment indicates otherwise. Additional medicals shall be carried out at intervals defined by the organization, subject to legal restrictions in the country of operation."
FDA 21CFR110.10 suggests that diseases can be monitored through supervisory observation without requiring actual medical examination.
Is there a way around requiring actual medical examinations for each employee? Doesn't it violate some kind of right to privacy law??

Help!





#2 cazyncymru

cazyncymru

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • Banned
  • 1,604 posts
  • 337 thanks
125
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 January 2011 - 10:43 PM

I work for a food manufacturer in the US.
We recently had a FSSC 22000 /PAS 220 audit in which the auditor is requiring corrective action because our policy is only to require employees to self report communicable diseases. However in PAS 220 clause 13.5 it states that "
Employees shall undergo a medical examination prior to employment in food contact operations, unless documented hazard or medical assessment indicates otherwise. Additional medicals shall be carried out at intervals defined by the organization, subject to legal restrictions in the country of operation."
FDA 21CFR110.10 suggests that diseases can be monitored through supervisory observation without requiring actual medical examination.
Is there a way around requiring actual medical examinations for each employee? Doesn't it violate some kind of right to privacy law??

Help!







MMMMM Syphilis is a communicable disease, but i doubt you'd get anyone admitting to having it!

Problem is, if too much emphasis or pressure is put on employees to report such illnesses, then end up not telling us anything! The other problem is that you start singling out individuals because they have an illness. As a diabetic would you stop me from working in a sweet factory????

Almost as bad as SEDEX asking if you have staff with HIV or AIDS (a question i omitted to answer as i'm sure it would contravene the human rights of staff!!)

Edited by cazyncymru, 25 January 2011 - 10:44 PM.


#3 NoLegalMoves

NoLegalMoves

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 3 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

Posted 25 January 2011 - 11:06 PM

You are saying that requiring self reporting is probably a bad idea for these reasons correct? How would mandatory medical examination for all employees be better? Also this is quite a change and quite an undertaking to implement company wide...
The PAS requirement does provide possible exclusions though.. "unless documented hazard indicates otherwise..."
What would the documentation of the hazard look like ? where would it be documented?

Thanks


MMMMM Syphilis is a communicable disease, but i doubt you'd get anyone admitting to having it!

Problem is, if too much emphasis or pressure is put on employees to report such illnesses, then end up not telling us anything! The other problem is that you start singling out individuals because they have an illness. As a diabetic would you stop me from working in a sweet factory????

Almost as bad as SEDEX asking if you have staff with HIV or AIDS (a question i omitted to answer as i'm sure it would contravene the human rights of staff!!)



#4 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 17,385 posts
  • 4840 thanks
944
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 26 January 2011 - 01:50 PM

Dear NoLegalMoves,

Your query involves, at least, medical issues, company policy issues, legislatory (ie geographical) issues (added later - sorry, I missed yr first line re US company).

I am not a user of FSSC but most standards assume (for obvious reasons) that any legislatory factors will take top priority, as in the text you quoted. In some localities, failure to observe such restrictions can be expensive.

Some medical “experts” consider that in-depth analyses, eg urine, faeces, are a waste of time for various reasons, like Caz mentioned or (sometimes) relevance to food or timing interpretations, etc. It’s a matter of opinion. Many companies still like to do it anyway, perhaps for issues like “due diligence”. (On the other hand, some options maybe do make sense, eg Chest x-rays.)

I guess this is the reason for the caveats in the standard, the related potential complexities are well-known and stating a generally applicable requirement is impractical.

(Analogous flexibility issues often occur in some items within Personal Hygiene sections requirements, eg (medical / religious) related “jewelry”.)

As you mention, exclusion possibilities are mentioned in the standard, a/yr proposed (validated) risk assessment (assuming its within company policy) could be an excellent opportunity to (freely) test out the viewpoint of yr intended auditing company (or current consultant). :smile:

Rgds / Charles.C


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#5 tsmith7858

tsmith7858

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 262 posts
  • 51 thanks
10
Good

  • United States
    United States

Posted 26 January 2011 - 02:37 PM

I work for a food manufacturer in the US.
We recently had a FSSC 22000 /PAS 220 audit in which the auditor is requiring corrective action because our policy is only to require employees to self report communicable diseases. However in PAS 220 clause 13.5 it states that "
Employees shall undergo a medical examination prior to employment in food contact operations, unless documented hazard or medical assessment indicates otherwise. Additional medicals shall be carried out at intervals defined by the organization, subject to legal restrictions in the country of operation."
FDA 21CFR110.10 suggests that diseases can be monitored through supervisory observation without requiring actual medical examination.
Is there a way around requiring actual medical examinations for each employee? Doesn't it violate some kind of right to privacy law??

Help!


Check into the legal restrictions clause. That is what we used. With the laws in the US for ADA and HIPAA you have to be very careful. Typically you need to detail what you are looking for in a medical exam and there are limitations.

You cannot have an exam conducted until after the job is offered and at that point you fall under any of a dozen rules for what will allow you to reject employment.

After they are employeed the only way to have continuing exams is if it is an OSHA requirement due to potential hazards presented on the job.

In the end you will probably find that the exam is only going to cost your company money and you are not going to be able to find out any of the information you need unless the employee tells you.

Thanked by 1 Member:

#6 cazyncymru

cazyncymru

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • Banned
  • 1,604 posts
  • 337 thanks
125
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 January 2011 - 07:50 PM

You are saying that requiring self reporting is probably a bad idea for these reasons correct? How would mandatory medical examination for all employees be better? Also this is quite a change and quite an undertaking to implement company wide...
The PAS requirement does provide possible exclusions though.. "unless documented hazard indicates otherwise..."
What would the documentation of the hazard look like ? where would it be documented?

Thanks



I don't think mandatory is better, but i'd hope that my staff feel that they can tell me their medical issues in a self reporting format rather than go to the expense (not just monetary but time expense too) in the hope we find someone with a communicatable disease by blanket testing.

How would you single out which people to test and what to test for?

Most industries already employ the services of occupational monitoring, dependant on the risk to the individual carrying out a specific task. Maybe this should cover the requirement?

caz x




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

EV SSL Certificate