Improving an employee’s skills often involves a subsequent change in their position. The same applies to those employees to whom other responsibilities are assigned, e.g. the modernisation of company structures, both at technological and administrative level. At such moments, many employers raise numerous questions, m.in. those concerning the responsibilities associated with such changes, especially those related to the safety of the employees (m.in.C,employees must undergo further training when theychangejobs? Cyou also need to undergo additional medical examinations? ).

The most important information regarding this situation can be found in Article 237 of the Labour Code. Paragraph 1 of that article provides that an employer may not admit a person employed for a particular post if he or she does not have the appropriate health and safety qualifications and knowledge. Paragraph 2, on the other hand, requires the employee to organise appropriate training. An exception to this situation is when the employee is employed in the same position as he was in the previous company. The condition here is immediacy – that is, just before moving to a new place of employment, he had to perform the same duties as he currently has.

It follows from those provisions that, with the exception of one specific exception, each person transferred to a new post must undergo an appropriate OSH course, more specifically job training. This involves, in particular, a change in the scope of responsibilities. The nature of the work, admittedly, does not have to change (after all, everything can take place at the office level), however, there may be a significant increase in the number of tasks performed or an increase in their importance. Therefore, appropriate training, conducted by a direct superior, is necessary.

On the other hand, there is also the question of the need to refer the worker to appropriate medical examinations, specifying his ability to perform certain tasks.

In this case, two interpretations of the rules are distinguished. According to the first, such examinations should be carried out on a case-by-case course, since the current medical certificate concerns, in particular, the current position, as evidenced by the appropriate endorsements on the certificate issued. Accordingly, that judgment applies only to a specific scope of research. This view is promoted primarily by labor law practitioners.

A more popular interpretation, however, seems to be the one that arises directly from the legislation. Namely, as provided for in Article 229(1) of the Labour Code, in addition to persons admitted to work (subject to Paragraph 1), research should also be directed to young people employed in the company who are transferred to other jobs, as well as other workers who are transferred to other positions where other harmful health or burdensome conditions arise. It follows that not every transfer of an employee requires research. This applies only to juvenile workers, as well as to situations where the new position involves new types of risks or different harmful or onerous factors.

On the other hand, some believe that even if environmental conditions and the nature of work do not change, the new position may entail an increased psychological burden. Thus, although in this case there is no express obligation as to the need to refer the employee to research, it is nevertheless worth doing.

Source:  https://eszkoleniabhp.com/blog/czy-przy-zmianie-stanowiska-nalezy-wykonac-kolejne-szkolenie-bhp

Projekt otrzymał dofinansowanie z Norwegii poprzez Fundusze Norweskie 2014-2021, w ramach programu „Dialog społeczny – godna praca”.