Boycott of Public Agency Engineering Employment
Code Citations: [1(f)] [13] [2(a)] [2(b)]
Case Citations: NONE
Following several years of charges of irregularities in the conduct of Public Authority X, a metropolitan public authority with a large engineering staff, and with the assistance of the local chapter and state professional engineering society, the trustees of the authority selects and appoints John Doe, a registered engineer, to head the authority's operations. Doe exercises his authority with a strong hand and rebuffs efforts of some trustees to influence his actions with regard to operations policy and personnel appointments. His administration is generally highly regarded as nonpolitical and efficient, but his method of operation develops political opposition by some trustees and other political figures in the state and local area. In due course, the political opposition to Doe grows to a point that the chairman of the board of trustees calls a special meeting at which Doe is fired on a split vote of the trustees. The chairman calls Doe into his office after the vote, advises him that he had been fired, and refuses to tell Doe, the press, or others the specific reasons or basis for the action.
Subsequently, State Legislation Committee Y holds a hearing on the Doe case, and Engineer A, a representative of the state society of professional engineers, testifies in opposition to the action of the trustees and urges that State Legislation Committee Y prescribe procedures to require that in such cases the trustees must (1) file formal charges against an incumbent, (2) conduct a formal hearing on the charges, and (3) allow the incumbent full opportunity to answer the charges at a public hearing. Pending legislative action on these recommendations, Engineer A publicly urges all engineers to refuse to consider appointment to positions within the authority. Engineers B and C agree with Engineer A's proposal and subsequently boycott the public authority. In addition, Engineers B and C urge other engineers to also boycott the authority.
Q1. Was it ethical for Engineer A to call upon all engineers to boycott Public Authority X pending a change in procedures to protect the rights of employees?
Q2. Was it ethical for Engineers B and C to boycott Public Authority X?
Q3. Was it ethical for Engineer B and C to urge others to also boycott the public authority?
We first disclaim any desire or intention to indicate or imply any judgment on the merits of the work of Doe or whether he should or should not have been retained in his position. That is a question of fact, law, and policy and is only for decision by a duly constituted public body with appropriate authority. We would only comment that as engineers enter into high-level public positions (which is to be encouraged) they must recognize their status and vulnerability to political pressures.
Regardless of the merits of Doe's performance, however, we are concerned with the reaction and statements of Engineer A following the legislative hearing and the subsequent actions of Engineers B and C, individually or jointly, in heeding the advice to boycott the authority.
Code 1(f) is not directly pertinent but is cited as some indication of the ethical impropriety of coercive action with regard to employment practices. In its full context, however, it clearly refers to coercive action on behalf of the economic interests of engineering employees rather than in connection with a political situation not directly involving those who are called upon to or may boycott a public employer.
Code 2(a) and Code 2(b) are likewise not directly in point but again are cited to indicate the principle that the engineer does have a duty to protect the public interest, and in fact to emphasize that that duty is paramount to others under the code. There is no reason to doubt that the boycott call by Engineer A was in the framework of a sincere belief that allowing Public Authority X to be unduly influenced by political considerations would jeopardize the efficiency of the engineering staff and thereby endanger the public health, safety, and welfare.
Finally, Code 13 provides some basis for believing that Engineers B and C may ethically "boycott" enterprises which operate in an unprofessional manner. While the reference here to "enterprise" would normally have the connotation of private industry, we believe it can fairly be read to embrace any type of organization which employs engineers.
Taken together, then, and under the somewhat unusual facts of the case, we believe that the "boycott" call by Engineer A was motivated by professional concern for the public good rather than for selfish reasons and for that reason was ethical.
There can be no question of the right of Engineers B and C, as individuals, to refuse to consider working for an employer which they believe does not conform to professional standards and ethical conduct. What one engineer may do individually others may do in concert, short of a conspiracy or mutual action for selfish reasons or personal aggrandizement.
Q1. It was ethical for Engineer A to call upon all engineers to boycott Public Authority X pending a change in procedures to protect the rights of employees.
Q2. It was ethical for Engineers B and C to boycott Public Authority X.
Q3. It was ethical for Engineer B and C to urge others to also boycott the public authority.
*NOTE- This opinion is based on data submitted to the Board of Ethical Review and does not necessarily represent all of the pertinent facts when applied to a specific case. This opinion is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as expressing any opinion on the ethics of specific individuals. This opinion may be reprinted without further permission, provided that this statement is included before or after the text of the case.
BOARD OF ETHICAL
REVIEW CASE REPORTS
The Board of Ethical Review was established to provide service to the membership of the NSPE by rendering impartial opinions pertaining to the interpretation of the NSPE code of ethics.
BOARD OF ETHICAL REVIEW
Frank H. Bridgers, P.E.; W.R. Gibbs, P.E.; C.C. Hallvick, P.E.; James D. Maloney, P.E.; Robert E. Stiemke, P.E.; Albert L. Wolfe, P.E.; Sherman Smith, P.E., chairman.
[Disclaimer]