Parliament has suspended the planned medical tests of its 1 200 support staff “pending further review and consultation”, it said, allowing for “thorough engagement to ensure a clear understanding of the purpose and importance of the assessments”, reports TimesLIVE.
Employees were outraged after being instructed to undergo a range of intrusive medical tests, sparking union outrage and drawing stinging criticism from a top labour lawyer who warned of “privacy issues”.
The tests ranged from urine analysis to gastrointestinal tract inspections and lung-function monitoring, and the plan came to light in an internal memo leaked to the Sunday Times.
In addition, they were ordered to disclose all prescribed and over-the-counter medications they consume, while those with chronic conditions or disabilities had to submit a doctor’s medical report or prognosis.
Parliament management and the National Education, Health and Allied Workers Union (Nehawu), which represents the majority of parliament employees, met on Monday to address concerns raised by the union and its members about the process.
On Tuesday, Parliament announced that a joint committee comprising representatives from both management and Nehawu would be established. This would determine and agree on the categories of employees, as defined under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), who are required to undergo medical assessments.
The team would also develop a clear framework for the assessments, ensuring transparency, inclusivity and sufficient consultation with affected employees and ensure that the process is non-intrusive and respects the privacy and dignity of all employees.
In an internal communication with staff, Parliament said it agreed with Nehawu that medical assessments were crucial for ensuring the health and safety of employees, in compliance with the OHSA. However, the assessments will be voluntary, and no employee will be forced or coerced into participating in the medical examinations.
“Access to personal health information will be limited to authorised medical professionals, and data will be used solely for occupational health purposes,” staff were assured.
Parliament said the introduction of medical surveillance was aligned with the OHSA and intended to safeguard employees’ health, especially those exposed to hazardous substances or working in potentially risky environments.
The specific objectives included protecting employees in high-risk areas, such as those exposed to hazardous chemicals (printing and binding) or biological agents (catering and food handling), preventing occupational illnesses, ensuring a healthy work environment and ensuring compliance with legal and regulatory obligations.
But Nehawu said it was not consulted about the process, and that engagement with certain employees in specific business units could not be considered a substitute for full consultation with the union.
It also objected to the “perceived” compulsory nature of the assessments, saying employees should not be coerced into participating, with Sthembiso Tembe, head of the union’s branch in Parliament, describing the mandatory tests as “intrusive, personal, private and unnecessary”. The union accused Parliament of violating labour laws and instructed its members not to comply.
However, previously, Moloto Mothapo, Parliament’s spokesperson, had said Nehawu had been consulted on the plan and had been all for it.
“In fact, Nehawu insisted on these measures out of concern for members,” Mothapo said.
The Sunday Times understands that earlier this year, Parliament interpreters had requested medical tests, saying the use of communal headsets, among other things, exposed them to health risks.
Mothapo had added that if an employee’s health were found to be compromised, Parliament would take steps to ensure their safety and well-being, which could include reassignment to a lower-risk environment, provision of medical care or other reasonable steps to support recovery and continued employment.
“The goal is not to penalise anyone but to promote a safe working environment and ensure those with health concerns are appropriately supported,” he had said.
Misinterpreting
But labour law doyen Professor Halton Cheadle, one of the authors of the 1995 Labour Relations Act that ensured a better deal for workers, said Parliament’s managers were “completely misinterpreting” the Occupational Health & Safety Act (OHSA).
Cheadle said the planned tests were usually reserved for workers in dangerous occupations.
“Basically there are three places where you are required to have medical surveillance: mines – coal mines because of dust and asbestos – factories, and listed works, which are particular industries or types of work declared highly hazardous by the Minister of Labour.”
There is no general power under law for an employer to require such medical surveillance, he added. It had to be linked to physical occupational risks, which did not apply in this case.
“In other words, the surveillance is risk-specific and applies only to those persons at risk,” he said. The entire workforce could not be required to undergo “a whole range of tests unrelated to the hazards” or provide a list of all the medicines they were taking.
According to the memo, Parliament cited regulation 85 of the OHSA as requiring it to determine if staff are medically fit to perform their duties as per their job description. The tests include blood pressure; finger prick tests for blood glucose and cholesterol levels; urine analysis for glucose, leukocytes, blood, protein and PH; body mass index assessment; and eyesight.
The physical examination would cover the respiratory system; ear, nose and throat; the gastrointestinal tract; the central nervous system; and the musculoskeletal system.
“Audiometric, lung function and formal vision screening testing would be conducted on employees, as per health risk assessment,” the memo reads. Employees with abnormal results would be referred to their treating doctor or community health centre.
“They are required to report back to the Parliament wellness clinic with their feedback letter from their doctor.”
Nehawu’s Tembe said: “It’s concerning that there is no such medical examination when we get employed in Parliament. You might have been employed with a disease and it has never affected your performance, but all of a sudden you will be told that you are not medically fit.”
TimesLIVE article – Parliament suspends ‘bizarre’ employee medical tests (Restricted access)
Sunday Times PressReader article – Parly medical tests shock (Open access)
See more from MedicalBrief archives:
Tackling risk factors will slash lower back pain burden, global analysis finds
Health Act amendments a bid by government ‘to cling to power’ – DA