F-22: Busy Engineer

 Statement of the Case: Engineer A was a competent consulting engineer, specializing in
manufacturing plant layout, but she was always very busy. A client asked Engineer A to review a
proposed plant layout and prepare an evaluation report. Engineer A reluctantly agreed. Because
of the pressure of other work, Engineer A assigned the task to an employee, Technologist B, who
was experienced in construction, but had little background in plant layout.

Technologist B did his best to evaluate the layout, but several key points were beyond his
knowledge. Although he tried to get advice from Engineer A, he was unable to do so, because
Engineer A was always too busy with her other projects. Technologist B finally prepared a draft
report for Engineer A to correct and complete. Technologist B sent the report to Engineer A with
a note saying that the report was an incomplete draft and that A should “give it detailed study.”
By this time, Engineer A was even busier than before, and she had to complete several major
tasks before going overseas for a month’s vacation. Engineer A simply had her secretary reformat
the draft report and print it on high-quality paper. Engineer A signed, sealed, and mailed
the report, without even reading it.

Questions: What clauses of the Code of Ethics have been violated by Engineer A’s actions?

What disciplinary actions could she expect?

Outcome: When the client received and read the report, he phoned Engineer A and said he was disgusted with the poor report and would not pay for it. Although Engineer A apologized

profusely, the client insisted on sending the report to the Association and making a formal

complaint. Engineer A admitted her negligence and received a reprimand from the Discipline

Committee.

Authors’ Comments: Engineer A is extremely lucky that the outcome of this negligent episode

is merely a reprimand. Fortunately, it appears that the client suffered no damage because of

Engineer A’s negligence.

This example illustrates how the simple principles in the Code of Ethics help engineers and

geoscientists to avoid much more serious professional problems. Engineer A had an obligation to deal with the client in good faith. She should have declined a task that she could not complete.

The client’s welfare was jeopardized by Engineer A’s busyness, presumably caused by her duties to other clients. Engineer A should have informed the client of this time conflict; the client could then assess the situation and decide whether to extend the deadlines or to engage another consultant. However, by making a commitment, but then passing off sub-standard work, Engineer A was negligent—a basis for discipline under every provincial Act.

Moreover, when Engineer A signed and sealed the report without even reading it, she committed a second unprofessional act. 

Engineers and geoscientists must not sign or seal engineering documents that have not been prepared by them, thoroughly checked, or prepared under their direct supervision. Since Engineer A evidently had not read the report (or even the note accompanying the report), she could hardly claim that she had prepared, checked, or supervised it. This is grounds for discipline under every provincial Act. Everyone is busy today; however, engineers and geoscientists have an obligation to act in good faith with clients by declining assignments that they cannot carry out properly, whether the reason is inadequate time, knowledge, or experience.