Sample Case Studies: Outcome & Author’s Comments

Case Study 1 – Mine Safety
Outcome & Author’s Comments

Outcome: Geoscientist B stated that, although he was hired for a different task, he could not ethically ignore such unsafe practices, and suggested that a combined, direct warning to the mine management might be more convincing than the engineer’s previous safety proposals. Engineer A agreed, and they made up a list of the most essential safety measures. The warning on mine safety was prepared as a chapter in the geoscientist’s report on ore extraction. They cited the Westray mine disaster, in which 26 miners were killed, and quoted sections from the Westray inquiry which showed several similarities between practices in the two mines. They also explained that the possibility of injury or death because of the dangerous mine conditions was a far more serious risk, financially, than the potential of mine closure.

Geoscientist B presented the report to senior management. Engineer A supported the safety warning, and emphasized that safety measures were needed whether the mine’s productivity justified them or not. After a brief discussion of the report, the senior management agreed to all of the proposed safety measures, saying that they simply had been unaware of the seriousness of the situation, both in financial and safety terms.

Author’s Comments: This example is typical of many cases where the initiative of Professional Engineers and Professional Geoscientists, and their commitment to the public welfare, as stated in the Code of Ethics, has resulted in safer and more productive work places.

Back to Case Study 1

Case Study 2 – Commissioning of Sewage Plant
Outcome & Author’s Comments

Outcome: Engineer A concluded that he must act as a faithful agent of the client, even if it created problems for the engineering company employing Engineer A. He met with engineers from the municipality and explained that the sewage plant was unlikely to pass the commissioning tests, because of the “slug” discharge problem. The municipality was unaware of this problem, and immediately contacted the food-processing industries for an explanation. After a lengthy negotiation, it was agreed that the industries would make structural changes to piping that would make the sewage flow more constant, and that an “equalization” basin would be constructed upstream from the sewage plant, where the slug flows would blend with other flows, thus providing a much more constant sewage flow, which the plant could process. The municipality contributed the land, the engineering company agreed to design the equalization basin as a public service, and the industries agreed to an increased mill rate to cover construction and maintenance costs for the basin.

Author’s Comments: Truth was essential. The truth would have become obvious, eventually, and a lawsuit would have followed. Professionals always prefer solutions to lawsuits.

Back to Case Study 2

Case Study 3 – Assisting a Non-Engineer to Practise Engineering
Outcome & Author’s Comments

Outcome: Several months later, a serious injury occurred while the new production line was being tested. During the subsequent investigation by occupational health and safety personnel, it became apparent that the accident was caused, in part, by a modification that “Engineer” B had made to drawings prepared by Engineer A. Pipes carrying high-pressure saturated steam had been re-routed to an area of heavy traffic. A forklift truck had accidentally hit the piping, causing it to rupture and scald the driver severely. The plant owner, the manager, and Engineer A were charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act with failure to safeguard the health of the worker.

During the hearing which followed, Engineer A was asked why she would trust the construction of the system which she had designed to someone without professional qualifications, who was using the Professional Engineer designation in flagrant contravention of the provincial Act. Engineer A had no answer, and was found guilty and fined. She was subsequently disciplined under the provincial professional engineering Act, and her licence was suspended, pending her re-writing of the professional practice exam.

Author’s Comments: To safeguard the public (in accordance with the Act and Code of Ethics) Engineer A should have either declined this job, or else insisted that the manager engage a Professional Engineer to supervise the installation and commissioning of the new line. Moreover, she had a duty to report “Chief Engineer” B to the provincial Association for the illegal use of this title, which is an obvious infraction of the provincial Act. Since personal relationships may become awkward in such situations, it is important to make it clear at the outset that you are a professional person, and professionals cannot condone such flagrant illegality. The issue is not simply the use of the title — it is the responsibility and competence that the title represents.

Back to Case Study 3

Case Study 4 – Meddling or Extending Public Knowledge?
Outcome & Author’s Comments

Outcome: A few months later, Geologist A received an inquiry from the ministry responsible for natural resources about a possible contract to advise the ministry on methods of improving well-logging regulations.

Author’s Comments: The actions of Geologist A were not only ethical, they were exemplary. More geoscientists and engineers should take part in guiding our elected representatives. (In fact, it would be beneficial to our country if more engineers and geoscientists were involved in making political decisions and running for election to public office.) Geologist A responded very positively to protect the public from hazardous professional decisions and to extend the public knowledge and appreciation of engineering and geoscience (which are duties explicitly stated in most Codes of Ethics).

Back to Case Study 4