Case 60-6

Practice in Other Than Major Field

Code Citations: [C23] [C4] [R13:27] [R23:45]

Case Citations: NONE

Facts:

Engineer A has a degree in mechanical engineering and is registered as a professional engineer under the state engineering registration law. He has had 15 years of experience in mechanical engineering work, including 7 1/2 years of mechanical and electrical design of all types of buildings. He has designed the electrical systems for several buildings.

Engineer B, holder of a degree in electrical engineering and registered as a professional engineer under the state law, filed a complaint with the state professional engineering society, alleging that Engineer A had acted unethically in designing electrical systems in view of his education and registration based on his proficiency as a mechanical engineer. The complaint does not question the competency of Engineer A, nor were any plans submitted by Engineer B to sustain a charge of lack of quality of the design work of Engineer A, even though such plans were requested by the state society.

Questions:

1. Was Engineer A unethical in practicing electrical engineering when his major field was mechanical engineering?

2. Was Engineer B unethical in filing a complaint against Engineer A without documented evidence (e.g., faulty plans)?

References:

Code C4
"He will have due regard for the safety of life and health of public and employees who may be affected by the work for which he is responsible."
Code C23
"He will not directly or indirectly injure the professional reputation, prospects or practice of another engineer. However, if he considers that an engineer is guilty of unethical, illegal or unfair practice, he will present the information to the proper authority for action."
Code R13:27
"He will not undertake responsible engineering work for which he is not qualified by experience and training."
Code R23:45
"He will report unethical practices of another engineer with substantiating data to his professional or technical society, and be willing to appear as a witness."

Discussion:

The Canons and Rules are clear that an engineer has a right and duty to bring charges of unethical conduct when he believes that a fellow engineer has acted improperly. But merely bringing charges is not a full discharge of his responsibility. He must, under Code R23:45, present substantiating data, which he failed to do in this case, or, at least, explain why he cannot present such substantiating data and indicate to the best of his knowledge how and where the full facts may be obtained.

Code R13:27 leaves no doubt of both its negative and positive admonition. Negatively, it prohibits responsible practice by one not qualified for the work at hand. Positively, it therefore must be read to permit any engineering work for which the individual is qualified. Whether or not an engineer is qualified for particular work is a question which can be determined only on the basis of demonstrated technical knowledge as shown by experience and training. While the type of technical education in an engineering school is a material factor in this evaluation, it is not controlling or all-inclusive.

It is known and accepted fact that one's training and experience continues throughout a professional career and it would be folly to assume that an engineer could never become qualified beyond those subjects which he studied in college. It is beyond doubt that a large number of engineers (perhaps even a majority) move into new or related fields of professional endeavor as they gain experience after their college studies.

The trend in engineering registration is to issue a license as a "professional engineer" without designation of branch, although the applicant may be examined in a particular branch. Whether this trend is a wise or proper one is outside of our jurisdiction. It does emphasize, however, insofar as the public is concerned, the importance of adhering to Code C4 of the Canons and Code R13:27. The profession must be alert to possible violations of these two injunctions and be ready to take prompt and effective disciplinary action for any breaches. This cannot be accomplished without complete and detailed information as to alleged violations. The analysis of the disciplinary body must rest upon the technical competence and ethical conduct of the engineer as shown by the evidence of his work.

Conclusion:

Q. 1. Engineer A was not unethical in practicing electrical engineering when his major field was mechanical engineering, assuming he was technically qualified by experience to perform such services.

Q. 2. Engineer B was unethical in filing a complaint against Engineer A without documented evidence.

Board of Ethical Review

L. R. DURKEE, P. E., PHIL T. ELLIOTT, P. E., WYLIE W. GlLLESPIE, P. E., A. C. KIRKWOOD, P. E., MARVIN C. NICHOLS, P. E., EZRA K. NICHOLSON, P. E., PIERCE G. ELLIS, P. E.

[Disclaimer]
[Main Page] [Index to Reference Documents] [Index to All Cases]