F-24: Assisting a Non-engineer to Practise Engineering

 Statement of the Case: The owner of a manufacturing firm hired Engineer A, a consultant in

process control, to assist in developing a new production line for hydrocarbon distillation,

involving high temperatures and toxic chemicals. The owner welcomed her to the company and

introduced her to “Engineer B.” Although “Engineer B” presented a business card stating that he

was a Professional Engineer and the sign on his office door said “Chief Engineer,” he was not

actually licensed. The project required Engineer A to design the new production line in conjunction with “Engineer B,” who would then supervise the construction and commissioning of the new line.

Engineer A worked with “Engineer B” for several months, designing the new production line,

but gradually became aware that “Engineer B” lacked engineering knowledge in several basic

areas. When she mentioned this to the owner privately, the owner admitted that “Engineer B”

was not a licensed engineer, but he had “many years” of experience, was very good at producing

and selling the company’s product, and the “Chief Engineer” designation gave him credibility

with customers.

The owner was aware that the new line involved some dangerous components, and that was why Engineer A was hired. Her job was to design the dangerous parts of the line and to sign any documents that required a Professional Engineer’s qualifications. When Engineer A suggested that this was a rather unprofessional arrangement, the owner pointed out that since she was designing the equipment, no harm would result. Moreover, if “Engineer B” were a Professional Engineer, then her services probably would not be required. Although Engineer A continued to believe that this arrangement was unprofessional, she took no action to report B to the provincial Association. 

Question: Should Engineer A have reported the illegal actions of “Chief Engineer” B?

Outcome: Several months later, a serious injury occurred while the new production line was

under test. Occupational health and safety personnel investigated the accident and concluded 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

through an area of heavy traffic. A forklift truck had accidentally hit the piping, causing it to

rupture and scald the driver severely. 

Both the plant owner and Engineer A were charged, under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, with failure to safeguard the health of the worker. During the hearing that 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; she was found guilty and fined. She was also disciplined under the

provincial professional engineering Act, and her licence was suspended, pending the rewriting of

the Professional Practice Exam.

Authors’ Comments: To safeguard the public (in accordance with the Code of Ethics), Engineer

A should have either declined this job or else insisted that the owner 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 obvious infraction of the provincial Act. 

Personal relationships may become awkward in such situations, so 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 misuse of the title: it is the lack of responsibility and competence that the misuse represents.