F-20: Inconsiderate Engineer

 Statement of the Case: Engineer A was a consultant in a specialty of process control. He had a
small consulting firm, employing one computer technician and a shared secretary. The specialty was well paid, and Engineer A had no local competitors. A large utility company hired Engineer A to design a key part of a major gas distribution facility. Engineer B, an employee of the gas utility, was resident engineer for the project, responsible for the site installation. The project involved several specialties, but since the system was complex, changes frequently affected everyone, so close communication and co-operation were essential.

During the project, the utility company decided to revise the specifications, and many field

changes had to be made to Engineer A’s design in order to accommodate the changes. Engineer A’s time was paid as an “extra.” Nevertheless, Engineer B could rarely communicate with  Engineer A, and it was almost impossible to get a quick response. Although Engineer B was skilled in process control, Engineer B could not, of course, change Engineer A’s design without contacting him and receiving approval. Eventually, Engineer B prepared a communications log of key calls and meetings with Engineer A, which read as follows:

(1) The first time B needed to contact A, he was unsuccessful. Engineer A was absent on

vacation, but had not left his staff with a phone number.

 (2) The next contact was successful, and A replied with a fax containing details of the needed

change. However, the change later proved to be in error. Engineer A sent a second fax with

correct data, the following day.

 (3) The next contact was successful.

 (4) & (5) The next contact required an early afternoon meeting at A’s office. Engineer A

arrived 45 minutes late, provided no explanation, but clearly had consumed alcohol. Engineer

B made an appointment for the next day and this meeting took place in a satisfactory manner.

 (6) & (7) The next two contacts were successful.

 (8) & (9) The next contact, by telephone, was satisfactory, and Engineer A promised to fax a drawing to B that day. The fax had not arrived by 4 pm, so B phoned A, but was told by the

secretary that A had already left, and neither the secretary nor the technician were aware of

the promised drawing. Engineer B phoned A the next day and A apologized profusely, saying

the drawing was ready, but he had simply forgotten to fax it. Engineer A sent the drawing by

fax, several hours later.

When the facility was completed, a dedication ceremony was held, attended by workers,

politicians, and local residents. Engineer B invited A to attend, to sit on the platform and to be

introduced to the audience, but he was not required to speak. Engineer A agreed to be there, but did not show up. When contacted later, A said he had an urgent meeting with another client and forgot to phone to explain the change of plan.

Shortly after the completion of the project, Engineer A bid on a similar design contract, but did not receive it. When he contacted Engineer B to discuss the loss of the contract, he was informed that his lack of attention to the previous contract swayed the decision against him.

Question: Was Engineer A negligent in his communication with Engineer B? Was it appropriate for Engineer B to consider the poor communication as a factor in awarding the subsequent contract?

Authors’ Comments: Although Engineer A’s actions show a pattern of discourtesy, they would

not qualify as negligence under the definition of the Act. Some of these communication

problems might be excusable lapses of behaviour, even though, taken together, they indicate a

discourteous attitude toward a client and colleague, contrary to the Code of Ethics. Although

such conduct may not justify a complaint to the Association, the discourtesy is a reasonable basis for awarding future contracts to a more communicative and co-operative colleague.