ENGG-6090: Professionalism and Ethic – Case Study Assignment Task

Posted: May 5th, 2020

ENGG-6090: Professionalism and Ethic – Case Study

Assignment Task

Paper No. 1 – Case Study

Using the framework for ethical decision-making consider what you believe Engineer A should do in this situation. Comment on whether Engineer A’s past actions were appropriate. Justify your decision and assessment using only the duties described in the PEO Code of Ethics. Your response should be approximately 1200 words.

Case Study

Engineer A is employed by a municipality in Ontario as a hydrological engineer responsible for planning, monitoring, and making assessments about issues related to the city’s stormwater management systems. When the City Council allowed a developer to fill in a large site on the flood plain of a major river running through the city, Engineer A expressed his concerns about this project to his supervisor, the Director of Planning. Engineer A believed that the infill project was a mistake since, he claimed, it could increase the risk of flooding. There had already been several instances of serious flooding on the river in recent years that had resulted in backflow of sewage into basements of some buildings in low-lying areas of the city. Engineer A expressed concern that sewage flooding basements could cause disease among the residents. Though Engineer A is not a structural engineer, he was also concerned about the integrity of a bridge upstream from the development site, claiming that flooding could undermine its foundations.

Engineer A was told by the Director that his concerns were exaggerated. The Director was supported by several consulting firms that had looked at aspects of the issues dealing with the floodplain development. These firms anticipated no flooding problems. Engineer A claimed that they had not considered the issue since their portions of the project were very specific to designing the development, not considering its implications. Engineer A continued to raise his concerns with colleagues but found that they were not convinced by his arguments. Eventually the Director imposed a gag order on Engineer A to prevent him from discussing the issue in the workplace. When Engineer A continued to express his concerns to other engineers in the department after hours the Director suspended the Engineer for one day without pay. In addition, Engineer A found that he was losing friends at work, that colleagues did not want to associate with him anymore. He also believed his employment was at risk. He asked the city’s employee union to become involved and was provided with legal assistance. To its credit the Director did arrange a meeting between Engineer A and the city’s senior administrator. Engineer A was able to present all his concerns at the meeting. However, after hearing from all parties the administrator approved the project and ordered Engineer A to stop voicing any concerns about the project. Engineer A is considering taking his concerns to reporters at the city’s newspapers and TV stations.

This ENGG 6090–Engineering Assignment

Engineer A is facing a challenging ethical dilemma. The issue is whether he should continue to express his concerns about a floodplain development project, despite the opposition he has faced from his supervisor, colleagues, and senior administrators. The Code of Ethics of Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO) provides a framework for ethical decision-making, which Engineer A should consider.

The PEO Code of Ethics establishes five fundamental principles that are binding on all professional engineers in Ontario. These principles are to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public and the protection of the environment; undertake only work that the engineer is competent to perform; avoid conflicts of interest; maintain confidentiality; and maintain the highest standards of professional integrity.

Engineer A’s concerns are related to the safety, health, and welfare of the public and the protection of the environment. He has expressed concerns that the development project could increase the risk of flooding, which could result in backflow of sewage into basements of some buildings in low-lying areas of the city. Engineer A’s concerns about the integrity of a bridge upstream from the development site, which could be undermined by flooding, are also related to the safety and welfare of the public. Therefore, Engineer A’s concerns are in line with the first principle of the PEO Code of Ethics.

Engineer A has raised his concerns with his supervisor, colleagues, and senior administrators, but he has not been able to convince them. The Director of Planning, supported by several consulting firms, has dismissed Engineer A’s concerns as exaggerated. Engineer A believes that these consulting firms did not consider the issue comprehensively, as their work was specific to designing the development, not considering its implications. This situation puts Engineer A in a difficult position, as he must weigh his duty to express his concerns against his duty to avoid conflicts of interest and maintain confidentiality.

The Director of Planning has imposed a gag order on Engineer A, which prevents him from discussing the issue in the workplace. When Engineer A continues to express his concerns to other engineers in the department after hours, he is suspended for one day without pay. Engineer A believes that his employment is at risk, and he has sought legal assistance from the city’s employee union. The Director of Planning did arrange a meeting between Engineer A and the city’s senior administrator, where Engineer A was able to present all his concerns. However, after hearing from all parties, the administrator approved the project and ordered Engineer A to stop voicing any concerns about the project.

Engineer A is considering taking his concerns to reporters at the city’s newspapers and TV stations. While this may be a tempting course of action, it could also put him at odds with the third principle of the PEO Code of Ethics, which requires engineers to avoid conflicts of interest. If Engineer A decides to go to the media, he should ensure that he does not breach confidentiality or disclose confidential information.

In summary, Engineer A’s past actions were appropriate, as he has expressed concerns related to the safety, health, and welfare of the public and the protection of the environment. However, his decision to take his concerns to the media could put him at odds with the principle of avoiding conflicts of interest. Therefore, Engineer A should consider other options, such as seeking legal advice or escalating the issue within the city’s bureaucracy, before taking any further action. Ultimately, the decision is his, but he must be mindful of his professional obligations under the PEO Code of Ethics.