CEN 800 - Chapter 8 – Ethical Problems of Engineers in Management

Ethics Section – Chapter 8 – Ethical Problems of Engineers in Management Engineers in managerial positions encounter some or all of the ethical situations discussed in Chapter 7 Managers control the resources of the corporation to a much greater degree than others Conflicts of interest may occur as well The manager must be alert to the potential for conflict of interest and must avoid becoming involved, or even appearing to be involved in unethical practices Adherence to the Provincial Act: One of the most obvious responsibilities of the professional engineer in a management position is to ensure the professional engineering act is carried out within the manager’s responsibility Two most common infringements of the Act in most provinces concern using unlicensed personnel to carry out work that P.Engs do, and misuse of engineering titles This is highly illegal, as well as unethical and unprofessional Unlicensed Personnel: Using unlicensed personnel is a serious infringement This can harm the client, the employer, or the general public Engineering work must be done by, or supervised by, a professional engineer Manager must risk offending the employee who is unlicensed in order to obey the act When acquiring a license isn’t possible, they must be put under supervision of a P.Eng. in order for them to continue with their useful and properly regulated work Misuse of Engineering Titles: If the tasks performed by an employee do not require a license, and they have assumed a title with the word “engineer” in it, the title of the employee must be changed to eliminate ambiguity Reviewing Work and Evaluating Competence: Engineers are required by law to practice only within their limits of competence Engineers shouldn’t undertake any work that isn’t within their competence Work Review for Accuracy: Most engineers have their work routinely reviewed by a second engineer for accuracy An important decision should never be made on the basis of a single engineer’s unchecked calculations These reviews are always carried out with the knowledge of the person who did the original work The purpose of this is to ensure safety, improve quality, and reduce liability Work Review to Assess Competence: It’s common practice to evaluate the performance of all employees on a regular basis The engineering manager is usually responsible for this action May also be necessary to review an engineer’s work to evaluate competence at other times as well A manager should never ask an engineer to review the work of another engineering without the knowledge of the engineer who prepped the work By not doing this is contrary to the code of ethics, and is also a matter of simple courtesy Discrimination in the Engineering Environment: Engineering manager plays a key role in hiring, firing, and evaluating the performance of engineers Because of this, engineers are always in a line of battle in terms of discrimination There shouldn’t be any problems of this due to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms Special Problems Related to Computers: Computers have incredible speed in analysis, and removed barriers in order to perform routine calculations and repetitive drawing Computers, however, create new responsibilities, like security, backup of data, infringement, and bugs in programs Liability for Errors in Computer Programs: Computer programs are susceptible to bugs that cause incorrect calculations A question of liability arises if the errors should result in an incorrect engineering decision Disclaimers in the documentation state that the liability of the seller of the computer program is limited to the cost of the program The engineer must be alert to the possibility that errors may exist in design software They must perform independent checks to ensure the validity of such design assistance These checks must be done before using them as a basis for key design decisions Hiring and Dismissal: Engineering manager hires and fires staff when required Engineering manager should be aware of some aspects for hiring and dismissal Employment Contracts and Policies: Best method for employing professional engineers is through employment contracts These contracts clearly outline how long they’re employed, salary rates, vacation time, etc. Terminating Employment for Just Cause: Manager must take responsibility for terminating or discharging employees when their services are no longer required These terminations must be subject to the employment contract Also, employees may be discharged for just causes, like performing criminal acts, or inadequate job performance Also, things like serious disobedience, serious incompetence, serious misconduct, and excessive absenteeism are also things as well Wrong Dismissal: If an employee without an employment contract is dismissed and the reason isn’t a just cause, then there is a risk of a wrongful dismissal There are six situations that could be considered wrongful dismissal, even though the employee isn’t technically dismissed Forced resignation, demotion, downward change in reporting function, a unilateral change of responsibilities, a forced transfer, and serious misconduct of the employer toward the employee Case Study 8.1 – The Unlicensed Engineer Let’s say you’re a manager of the engineering design department of an consulting engineering firm You hire and fire employees 6 months ago, you hired Jorges Xavier, who recently moved to the area from another province During the job interview, you emphasized that he must be licensed, and the job offer letter said that he was being hired as a P.Eng. After Xavier started work, you had a sign placed on his door and had business cards printed, both having the P.Eng. designation beside his name Later, you receive a complaint from a client who claims that Xavier isn’t a professional engineer Client is furious that you’d send unqualified people to work on their project You contact the provincial association of P.Engs. and they confirm that Xaver doesn’t have his P.Eng. Question: Who is responsible for this problem? Can you fire Xavier for just cause? Does it make a difference if Xavier is licensed from another province, but forgot to apply for a transfer of license? Does it make a difference if Xavier has applied to transfer his license, but is still being processed by the provincial association? Does it make a difference if Xavier has never been licensed by any province? Author’s Recommended Solution: A person who has been licensed in one province will generally qualify to be licensed in another province In some cases, they may have to write some additional exams to prove that they are qualified, but this will take only a matter of months This case involves a breach of the Professional Engineering act Xavier is guilty of practising professional engineering without a license His business cards say P.Eng., and he has used them without protest or correction He is also not licensed in the province of where he’s working The employer (you) are also guilty of breach of the code of ethics if you permit Xavier to continue practising engineering We must determine what kind of work Xavier did for the client If he was in a junior, or training position, his work would have been supervised by another engineer, and there wouldn’t be any problems, and no damage would have occurred However, you are ultimately responsible for verifying the qualifications of your workers If Xavier failed to apply for a license in 6 months of employment, but has a valid license in another province, then this could be interpreted as serious misconduct and a breach of the code of ethics, and is just cause for dismissal If Xavier applied for a license, but this application was delayed by the provincial association, Xavier probably complied with your requirements, and dismissal would be unjust If Xavier has never been licensed in another province, then he has been dishonest, and such fundamental dishonesty would be just cause for his dismissal You, as a manager, also bear much of the responsibility for any embarrassment or liability that the firm suffers, even though you stated that the requirement of a license is needed You didn’t check to see if he had his license Xavier is at fault for using the P.Eng. title, and may be subject to a charge under the act Case Study 8.2 – Dismissal of Offensive Engineer Summary: Let’s say you’re a licensed engineer working with 10 other engineers, and 18 designers and CAD operators You are called to the VP’s office, who is your direct superior He is asking you to fire one of your engineers who has disgraced himself by talking in a loud and offensive way to the VP at a company picnic held the previous week You also attended that picnic and recall that the talk began about sports, and was unrelated to company business After some drinks, the VP and the engineer started insulting each other You tell the VP that the engineer’s work has been satisfactory, but the VP says the engineer’s behaviour was offensive and insubordinate He says that insubordination is grounds for dismissal He also states that failure to co-operate with his request is also insubordination Question: What do you do here? How would you do it? Author’s Recommended Solution: First step is to get all the facts and define the problem Was the behaviour of the engineer a just cause for dismissal? Since you witnessed the incident, and didn’t initiate the dismissal action, you didn’t really consider it a serious case of insubordination Also, for the engineer’s behaviour to be considered sufficiently scandalous to justify dismissal, there has to be a record of continuous insubordination and wilful disobedience This shouldn’t just be an argument that happened at a social event There doesn’t seem to be a basis to justify dismissal in this case Under the code of ethics, you have a duty to the employer, as well as the employee As such, the engineer’s behaviour doesn’t constitute a just cause for dismissal A reprimand of the engineer might be more appropriate, and nothing more on top of this is the best action Case Study 8.3 – Conflict of Interest Summary: You’re an engineering manager at a company, and you have been asked to sit on a 10 member standards committee Committee consists of you, three government representatives, and three engineering profs, and it’s charged by a rep from an engineering society associated with the company’s field One of the other industry reps has proposed a revision to a spec for a component that you manufacture The change will make a fairly modest improvement in quality, but will require specialized manufacturing expertise and equipment During this meeting, you see that this will improve the quality of your product by a fair amount, but it will create some hardships for your competitors You also believe that the person making this proposal will also benefit in a similar way You’re not sure whether you should bring these points in front of the committee You didn’t propose this modification, but it does improve the quality of the product, but any benefits that the company will receive is purely by chance Question: Do you have an ethical obligation to inform the committee that your company may benefit from this revision? Do you have an obligation to point out that the person proposing the revision may also stand to benefit? Author’s Recommended Solution: This is a clear conflict of interest, and you must disclose it to the committee Code of ethics states that the engineer must put the welfare of society above personal interest The main function of a standards committee is to serve the public welfare The committee may decide, after discussion, in favour of the revision However, it would probably be acceptable for you to express an opinion on the revision once the conflict of interest has resolved Also, you can’t provide a formal vote You don’t have an obligation to speak about the member who is proposing the revision unless you believe that there is a deliberate fraud, which doesn’t appear to be the case Case Study 8.4 – Errors in Plans and Specifications Summary: You are the engineering manager for the Acme Assembly company, where they design, manufacture, and assembly machinery You have received a contract to construct 20 gearboxes that have been designed by Delta Designs This company is occasionally a competitor However, Delta is extremely busy, and they don’t have the capacity for this work right now One of your engineers notices that the size of shafts and gears on the drawings appear to be rather small for the torque and power ratings of the gearboxes Rough calculations seems to confirm that assessment You call the chief engineer at Delta Designs, and he states that he is too busy to double-check the drawings He has full confidence of his engineers and said that you should get on with the job He also points out that you’re in the contract as a fabricator, and not a designer He also says you shouldn’t be reviewing his work Question: Do you have an ethical obligation to pursue this discrepancy? Would it make any difference if failure of the gearboxes could result in injury or death, rather than financial loss? Author’s Recommended Solution: Under the code of ethics, an engineer is obligated to a client to ensure that the client is fully aware of the consequences of failing to follow the engineer’s advice In this case, a telephone call wouldn’t have sufficed, either ethically or legally You should follow up with a letter after the telephone call, which describes your concerns and request written instructions to proceed If the chief engineer at Delta Designs should instruct you, in writing, to proceed with the making of these gearboxes, you would do so, unless you consider the flaws in the design to be very serious This might indicate a problem of negligence on Delta Designs’ Part The potential for injury or death in the case of failure is important Failure to safeguard the safety of the public could be considered professional misconduct on your part If serious injury or death is possible, the chief engineer’s complaint about you reviewing his work is irrelevant A review of the design is appropriate in these circumstances, and through your diligence, you have sought to protect the public, and safeguard the chief engineer’s reputation as well Case Study 8.5 – Manipulation of Data Summary: You are a professional geologist responsible for all exploration in a mine You report directly to the CEO of the mine, who is an accountant You finished evaluating initial ore assays for a newly opened part of the mine, and they show much lower ore content than hoped or expected The COE is very disappointed, even though you assure him that the results are preliminary and that more thorough results will be available soon The CEO had hoped to present good news about the exploration to shareholders CEO asks you to keep the poor results confidential, and not to report or discuss them until after the shareholders’ meeting, and not even with the people in the company as well Question: Is it ethical to keep this information confidential from the shareholders, who are the owners of the company? Author’s Recommended Solution: Geological data are extremely sensitive information, and can be the sole basis for major decisions in the mining, oil and gas industries The financial welfare of the company may depend on keeping this poor data confidential Here, you have initial results and they have been deemed as preliminary Releasing preliminary data showing low ore content could introduce a loss of confidence in the company As such, if there is no concern about fraudulent intent, it would be ethical to keep these reports confidential until the results are known with certainty Case Study 8.6 – Professional Accountability Summary: Ethel Eager, P.Eng., is a mech. Eng. Working in the production department of a well-known specialty chemicals company The company makes consumer products in Canada for the North American market Eager started out 5 years ago in a junior production position, reporting to Cam Complacent, P.Eng., the production supervisor When Eager started at this Canadian plant, it was highly successful However, over 5 years of Eager’s employment, the plant became steadily less competitive compared to other firms When Complacent retired recently, Eager was promoted to fill in for Complacent Having passed her PPE during this time, Eager was aware of the importance of ethics in engineering Over the past 5 years, Eager noticed several unusual practices in the plant and in the office Eager then approached Complacent about her concerns, but Complacent shut down her concerns, and said being “easy” on these subjects helped to keep morale and productively up Eager was personally convinced that some employees were cheating their employer by taking products home, and misrepresenting their hours of work However, Eager kept quiet, since there didn’t appear to be a significant problem However, shortly after filling in for Complacent, early one Monday morning, there had been a major theft at the plant on the weekend The police caught two thieves, who turned out to be employees at this company The police later found out that a network of employees were involved, and wanted to interview Eager about further investigations Later, Eager received a fax from the company’s VP wanting to review why the TO plant’s costs were high, and productivity was low Eager received a fax saying that the theft is known, and will be at the plant tomorrow to investigate Question: Should Eager be held accountable for the employees’ actions? Author’s Recommended Solution: Eager is accountable to her management, and possible to the police and to her profession This is because she knew about the dishonest environment, and let it flourish Because Eager is a P.Eng., she has a duty under the code of ethics to all stakeholders to act with high ideals of personal honour and integrity She also has a duty to expose, before the proper tribunals, unprofessional and unethical conduct of another engineer Eager should have explained to Complacent that her professional duty included dealing with her concerns, the benefits of dealing with them, and the consequences of ignoring them If this didn’t work, they she could have suggested to Complacent that they could work together to talk this over with senior management If Complacent was unwilling here, her last resort would probably be going alone to senior management, or obtaining advice from the provincial association