Nic Pipkin was asked to provide a blood sample as part of the recruitment process as a fly-in, fly-out electrical contractor.

He said he reluctantly consented to the test.

“It was a prerequisite for the job … you either get the blood test or you don’t get the job.”

His main concern was how his medical information would be used.

“I just want to ensure that my bloods are used for the sole purpose of employment … not going onto some privatised database or used in a malicious way,” he said.

Mr Pipkin works in the mining and resource industry in Western Australia. He said it wasn’t clear whether his medical results would be transferred if he changed companies or if they could potentially be “sold off”.

“I’ve consented and accepted the fact that I needed (the test) to garner employment and I’m accepting of that, it’s more where that goes moving forward.

“There should be stricter restrictions … because that’s my DNA you know.”

What are employers using blood tests for?

The expectation for workers to provide blood samples, particularly in the mining and resources sectors, has raised concerns over privacy risks.

A new report by the Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work, revealed that employers said they were using the tests to check for cardiovascular risks or to meet “legal obligations”.

But there was no way of knowing the company’s true intention – nor was there any guarantee the employee records containing the medical information would be covered by the Privacy Act.

Senior Researcher Lisa Heap, who helped author the “No Blood No Job” report, said there was a growing expectation for potential employees to undergo tests without any clear indication of how the tests were connected to their job requirements.

“Employers are requesting from employees sensitive information that they shouldn’t have to provide as part of the recruitment process and that’s becoming more of a routine practice,” she said.

Dr Heap said some jobs legitimately required employees to undergo medical testing for safety reasons or to protect employees, in particular those working with biological hazards, but an increasing number of employers were not specifying why they needed medical information.

“Prospective employers shouldn’t be able to ask for that information unless they can justify that there’s a need.

“If organisations are pressed they’re saying broad things like, ‘for health and safety reasons’ or ‘because we have a legal obligation’.”

Dr Heap said employers were not providing the appropriate level of detail needed to alleviate concern from prospective employees and the report found some workers were even asked to sign consent forms that placed no restrictions on the use of their information.

Can a worker refuse a blood test?

Dr Heap said people looking for work were particularly vulnerable and often not in a position to give informed consent.

“They’re really not in a power position to be able to say, ‘I’m really feeling uncomfortable about this’. So they’re not in a position to be able to give informed consent.”

She said an electrical trades worker in the construction sector revealed he was removed from the recruitment process when he declined a blood test.

“One of the workers who we interviewed did decline to have a blood test and they were immediately removed from the recruitment process … if they weren’t prepared to give their blood they weren’t even considered for the role.

“You’re either in or you’re out. If you don’t give the blood you’re out.”

How secure is an employee’s medical information?

The Australia Institute report found that information provided to employers was covered under the Privacy Act, but employee records were not.

“We have argued in the report that the law needs to change,” Dr Heap said.

“Either the privacy law needs to change or the workplace relations law (does).

“It’s really alarming in this current environment where more and more information is being collected and we don’t know how it’s being used … it could be sold on to other parties, it could be used for purposes that workers did not understand it could be used for.”

A spokesperson for the Attorney-General said the government had agreed in principle to enhance the privacy protections of employees as part of the review into the Privacy Act.

This included, “ensuring that employers only collect employee information that is reasonably necessary to administer the employment relationship, protecting employees’ personal information from misuse, loss or unauthorised access and destroying it when no longer required, and notifying employees and the Information Commissioner of any data breach.”

The Mineral Councils of Australia, an industry heavily referred to in the report, declined to comment. 

The ABC also contacted the Recruitment, Consulting and Staffing Association – the peak body for recruitment – which was also unavailable for comment. 

Loading…