This is the October 2020 edition of our monthly series of Ethics case studies titled What Do You Think? This series is comprised of case studies from NSPE archives, involving both real and hypothetical matters submitted by engineers, public officials and members of the public.
Your peers and the NSPE Board of Ethical Review have reviewed the facts of the case as shown below. And, here are the results.
Your opinion has been registered for the October 2020 edition of our monthly series of Ethics case studies titled What Do You Think?
Your vote is recorded as:
Want to know how your peers voted? We’ll send you an email with the poll results on October 27.
Your opinion has been registered for the October 2020 edition of our monthly series of Ethics case studies titled What Do You Think?
Your vote is recorded as:
Want to know how your peers voted? We’ll send you an email with the poll results on October 27.
A Review of the Facts
Engineer Patrick, employed by Superior Engineering, leaves Superior and goes to work for competitor Maverick Engineering. A project which Patrick was responsible for was virtually completed, but Patrick did not sign or seal the construction documents before leaving Superior’s employment. Engineer Roland, a principal in Superior, requests Patrick to sign and seal the drawings. Patrick refuses to sign or seal the construction documents unless Superior pays Patrick an additional fee.
Was it ethical for Patrick to refuse to sign or seal the plans unless Superior pays Patrick an additional fee?
Here is the result of our survey of your peers:
Applicable NSPE Code References:
Code I.4: Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
Code III.4: Engineers shall not disclose, without consent, confidential information concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former client or employer, or public body on which they serve.
Code III.4: Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers. Engineers who believe others are guilty of unethical or illegal practice shall present such information to the proper authority for action.
Code III.8: Engineers shall accept personal responsibility for their professional activities, provided, however, that engineers may seek indemnification for services arising out of their practice for other than gross negligence, where the engineer’s interests cannot otherwise be protected.
Discussion
The engineer’s obligation to take responsibility for professional services is a basic ethical principle contained in the NSPE Code of Ethics. As a general principle, engineers have the obligation to assume responsibility for professional services performed by them, or by those directly under their personal supervision. Depending on the nature of the work, this may include services performed for the benefit of a client, design work, reports, plans, and specifications and work prepared by the engineer, which will be submitted to a public authority for approval.
Engineers who work for one firm and then move on to another firm are not released from this professional responsibility. The work that they performed for their previous employer is no less their work because they no longer have a direct relationship with that firm. Once a professional renders professional services on behalf of a client, the professional is duty bound to make certain that the work is done in a responsible and professional manner and that the client’s interests are protected and preserved.
This circumstance can become particularly sensitive when an engineer leaves a firm to go to work with a competing firm. Nevertheless, the fact that the two firms are in direct competition should have no bearing on the responsibility of the engineer to assume responsibility for the work and take appropriate steps for the benefit of the client. It would seem not only the ethical course of action, but also an action which comports with the interests of all parties, including the interests of the new firm at which the engineer is now employed.
The full extent of Patrick’s involvement with the project is not evident from the facts presented. However, it can be assumed by the use of the term “virtually completed” that the work had been completed in almost all respects, and only minor ministerial detail remained to be performed. Thus, it can be surmised that Patrick would not be asked to perform an exhaustive or detailed review of the work, since it can be assumed that Patrick was already intimately familiar with the work on the project for which he had been and continues to be responsible. In addition, because Patrick is not employed by the original firm at the time he is being asked to sign and seal the drawings, it does not appear that he would be violating any ethical proscription contained in the NSPE Code of Ethics (see NSPE Code III.4).
We are concerned by Patrick’s professional attitude concerning the firm’s request that he sign and seal drawings. While we believe Patrick may have legitimately been entitled to a small fee for performing additional professional services performed for his former employer, and as part of his accountability to his new firm, we are struck by Patrick’s refusal to sign and seal the drawings unless paid additional compensation. As we have discussed earlier, since Patrick was primarily responsible for the work and had direct control and personal supervision over the work, Patrick has a professional obligation to sign the work regardless of the how the compensation matter is resolved. It is unclear whether competitive pressures between the firms may have been a factor in Patrick’s position, but such factors should not come into play in a matter of the signing and sealing of drawings.
The Ethical Review Board’s Conclusion
It was unethical for Patrick to refuse to sign or seal the construction documents unless Superior pays Patrick an additional fee.
BOARD OF ETHICAL REVIEW
James G. Fuller, P.E., William W. Middleton, P.E., Robert L. Nichols, P.E., William E. Norris, P.E., Paul E. Pritzker, P.E., Jimmy H. Smith, P.E., C. Allen Wortley, P.E. (Observer), Donald L. Hiatte, P.E., Chairman
Note – In regard to the question of application of the Code to corporations vis-a-vis real persons, business form or type should not negate nor influence conformance of individuals to the Code. The Code deals with professional services, which services must be performed by real persons. Real persons in turn establish and implement policies within business structures. The Code is clearly written to apply to the Engineer and it is incumbent on a member of NSPE to endeavor to live up to its provisions. This applies to all pertinent sections of the Code. 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.
I disagree. There is no mention of how much time has elapsed or how many changes may have occurred to the drawings since he left the previous firm. In order to protect his own liability, Patrick needs to review the drawings before he adds his seal to them and takes responsibility for them. In addition, any changes that Patrick requests must be made to the drawings before he takes liability for them. This review could be a minor amount of work or a major amount of work and Patrick should be compensated for his time and liability.
I agree that there is not enough information of how much work and really how critical that last review was, to disallow his request to be paid for the review before he stamps the documents. For all we know, he may have left that firm to go to another because of similar pressures??
What does “virtually completed” means? Let’s assume Patrick left the company because there was pressure from management to rush the project to completion and he was uncomfortable with the design to put his signature. Now given a chance, he was willing to put additional time and resources to address his concern in the design before putting his signature and seal. Shouldn’t he be paid for the additional time and resources? Need more information. If Patrick is asking for more money to just sign and deal with no additional efforts then I agree with boards decision.
“The full extend of Patrick’s involvement with the project is not evident from the facts presented.” How much is “virtually completed?” 80%? Was the engineer’s departure voluntary (he switched jobs) or involuntary (Superior had a reduction in force and then he obtained a job at Maverick)? How much time passed before Patrick was asked to do the review?
If Patrick switched jobs with the project all but sealed, and time lag was minimal, then yes, he has the professional obligation to seal his work without additional compensation from Superior.
However, this is often not the case. Projects get put on hold at various stages of completion, and engineering companies will lay off personnel when work slows down. When work resumes, the design is completed under the direction of others. Under those circumstances, Patrick would need to do more than a cursory review before applying his seal. For that he should receive compensation. A better approach would have been to negotiate a fee rather than flatly refuse.
You said the documents were “virtually complete”. Could Patrick be certain that there had been no changes after he left? I believe he was obligated to perform an additional review of the documents before signing and stealing unless he was certain there had been no modifications. It might be cursory or extensive depending upon many factors not explained in the case study. Seeking compensation for that isn’t unethical, particularly for a relatively large or complex undertaking. Depending upon the nature and scope of the work to be reviewed asking to be paid might be considered bad form.
The key work is “Virtually”. It means there were items that still had to be ironed out or completed before sending the drawings out for permit and construction. Furthermore, if Patrick is responsible for the drawings, he is the only one that can respond to building department comments, RFI’s, changes/revisions to the drawings, field inspections, punch list, etc.
The company should had sent a letter of transfer of responsibility to Patrick and have another engineer (employed by the company) take responsibility of the project to carry the project to completion.
His former employer cannot ask Patrick to take this responsibility while working for another company.
Patrick should sign and seal the work that was complete when he resigned. Any work that was not complete should be subject to negotiation between Patrick, his new employer and his old employer. His old employer always had the option to have another PE review the work and complete it. Patrick’s new employer should be looking for a hold harmless agreement for any work that Patrick completes after becoming their employee. None of Patrick’s actions or negotiating positions should have the appearance of retribution or a money grab. After notifying his old employer of his planned departure, Patrick was ethically obligated to complete, sign and seal as much of the work as was reasonably practicable before his departure.
“Virtually complete” are the words that I used to find Patrick’s behavior ethical. Since the work product was not complete, something may have been changed or altered since the last time it was viewed. If a person needs to review and confirm the design and plans are indeed what they had direct control of, then there should be consideration of compensation.
Frankly, this should have been worked out by Superior and Patrick prior to the departure to get this signed and/or an approach to signature. Both parties actions led to an issue that could have been avoided by looking forward and being good partners.
Not enough information. The signing and sealing of the plans should have been worked out before Patrick left the firm. If as the comments says there is still some work to finish Patrick will need time to review thus he should be compensated. Another question did Patrick just up and quit or did he give notice. If he gave notice than the terms of signing the plans should have been worked out.
Only comment is I would have to be covered under the Firm’s liability insurance or, if they refused, pay for my professional liability insurance for that project.
From the discussion it appears that Patrick could have sealed the drawings as he wrapped up his work for the company. Since he was responsible for the project no one else was in a position to seal the drawings.
There is a lot of missing information of the story. What were the terms of Patrick’s departure – did he give a 2 weeks notice? If he did, there was a lot more that needed to be done than just seal the drawings. Was it a fix fee employment assignment? What was the level of completion of the drawing package at the time of his departure? Did the drawings go through an interdisciplinary check before his departure? Was Patrick trying to bend the Superior over a barrel? Was Superior trying to bend Patrick over a barrel? Since Patrick is no longer an employee of Superior, who is responsible for Patrick’s professional liability insurance at the time of sealing the drawings? Before sealing drawings, I always review them. If this time was more than a few hours, I would expect to be compensated at my previous pay rate for the time that I spent reviewing them and to be covered Superior’s PLI. Upon hiring with Maverick, I would also alert them that I still had to complete a job at Superior. As an employer, I would do the same for an employee. We often talk about personal ethics, but fail to consider company ethics. For over 30 years, I’ve been fortunate to work for an engineering company, which is run by ethical engineers. I’ve heard horror stories from the less fortunate, who are constantly being strong armed by their non-engineering superiors to make questionable engineering decisions to reduce project costs.
To me this is a simple straight forward obligation for this engineer
It is my professional opinion that Patrick should stamp and sign the documents but not without a final review of the work for which he should be compensated.
To not require payment for the final review, which the engineer would be obligated to do, would be unfair to the professional and a disservice to the profession, we all have to make a living and giving away services cheapens us all. After all, what was done to the plans after Patrick left the firm and before he was asked to stamp and sign the plans.
If Patrick signs and seals the drawings while he is not employed by Superior Engineering; does this make Patrick personally liable for the work and relieve Superior Engineering of liabilities?
I would agree that the act would be unethical had the plans been ready for sealing. However, no matter the extent of completions, it is Superior Engineering’s responsibility to their client, not Patrick, PE. By requiring Patrick, PE to seal the plans AFTER his departure could place him in a ‘conflict of interest’ situation. It is for this reason I disagree with the finding of the Board of Ethical Review.
I would have a difficult time signing the plans whether a fee was paid or not. If a fee was to be paid it would need to be from Superior Engineering to Maverick Engineering, else the conflict of interest situation arises again.
I feel it was Ethical because the work was “virtually completed” not completely completed. This means Patrick must be compensated for additional review of the project to make sure that it is completed per the codes.. Hence I think it Ethical for Patrick to get addition fee to do review.
I feel it was Ethical because the work was “virtually completed” not completely completed. This means Patrick must be compensated for additional review of the project to make sure that it is completed per the codes. Hence I think it Ethical for Patrick to get addition fee to do review.
PDH Team,
I appreciate the monthly ethics questions, and your webinars have allowed me to meet my NY, NJ, and MD continuing education requirements several times.
I wanted to respond to this ethical question because the answer suggests what is likely a violation of the engineer’s terms of employment with his new firm. I have disagreed with a few of the findings in these monthly ethical questions before but never felt I was that far apart on your team’s findings. If I was Engineer Patrick, I would have conferred with my current employer, Maverick Engineering, and suggested that my former firm, Superior Engineering, contract with Maverick Engineering for me to conduct final review, approval, and sealing of the drawings. To do otherwise could put me in jeopardy with my current employer.
This situation arises. The solutions my companies have always been able to implement is to transition the project to a new professional engineer prior to the departing engineer’s final day. It has been a general practice that a departing engineer relinquishes responsible charge of all projects unless they are remaining on under some employment basis such as part time as needed. If it is a small firm with only one licensed PE on staff (at least in the requisite discipline), then that would be a different issue for them to resolve.
The key word here is “Virtually”. That does mean that some work had been done subsequent to Patrick’s departure. He had to ensure what that work was. Got caught with that years ago. Only minor work had been done, but that work included modification of the drainage design in such a manner as to result in localized flooding. This would not have been caught without a fairly thorough review. Insisting upon doing this review did not make that employer happy, but it proved to be necessary. Consequently, I feel that Patrick’s professional integrity require that he make a fairly though review so as to find and analyze any changes, and that he be paid for this work.
My comment was based more on the virtual completion and not on the word refused which could be interpreted in many ways. After 36 years as a project engineer and project manager, I know that there can be much review work to be done before the drawings and work documents can be stamped. The project design drawings and work specification documents can essentially be completed but not ready for stamp. In this case, I don’t feel it is unethical to present this information for fare payment. If I were Patrick, I would have discussed this with my new company, especially if the time taken to do the final review and P.E. stamp was on their time. As the argument was presented by the board as clear cut in the amount of remaining work to be minimal, I agree with their judgement if Patrick’s refusal was final and based on his employment with another company.
I do not believe it is unethical to ask to be paid an hourly wage (at his standard rate with the firm) to finish the work and sign/seal it. He is under no obligation to sign and seal a finished product (presumably finished after he left the company) he has not had the time to properly review. Doing so would be unethical as well. The time he needed to devote to proper QA/QC of the work was negotiated into the original contract, and should not be pure profit for the company. The client paid for that review and expects it. Likewise, Patrick is responsible for the contents and should fully review it prior to signing and sealing, as should any engineer, and that takes time. No one should have to work for free. However, it would be very unethical of Patrick to ask for an unreasonable lump sum, and hold the signed and sealed plans for ransom. By the way, I’m a small business owner and I would never dream of asking an employee to come back and sign and seal plans that were completed after he left, even if only 5% were done after he left, without compensation. I would, however, expect that he would sign and seal the plans if I paid him for his time. And, I would have to wonder about insurance. Our insurance covers employees, but if he is no longer an employee, the insurance company could reject a claim. If he were paid his regular hourly wage to complete the plans and sign/seal them, he would be covered under insurance.
Anyone who has worked on a real project knows significant changes occur after the work is virtually completed. In today’s environment, any error or omission can be catastrophic. Assuming compliance to previous requirements is negligent. There is no information regarding agreements or discussions prior to departing the first firm.
I believe it’s a large assumption to say ” it can be assumed by the use of the term “virtually completed” that the work had been completed in almost all respects, and only minor ministerial detail remained to be performed.” Patrick would need to conduct a review of the design to be sure no substantial changes had been made before stamping the documents. A substantial change can be a small detail when dealing with vital components of the design. His professional obligation would require him to review the documents he is planning to stamp.
At least four key issues have been neglected;
(1) Whether original firm is operating under Certificate of Authorization which requires all engineering documents issued by such firm to be signed & sealed only by “principal” engineers working for firm………and listed as such on forms filed with state Board of Engineers. If so……….then Patrick is no longer principal of firm and is almost certainly no longer authorized (by law) to sign & seal plans.
(1A) “Roland”…….noted to be principal engineer……….may well have to take on responsibility for signing & sealing plans……….and would then have to take time to fully review plans. Of course whether Roland can be considered to have performed “responsible charge” is an issue that must be carefully analyzed as well.
This key issue would arise in the unfortunate event that Patrick had met his untimely demise as well.
(2) Ownership of plans should be addressed. If original firm………..and not Patrick……..owns plans after Patrick is no longer employed by firm then effects of such condition must be fully addressed by any opinion on this case. NSPE has failed to address this important issue.
(3) As employee, it is highly unlikely that Patrick has his own personal professional liability insurance. If Patrick were to sign & seal plans at time when he is no longer employed by original firm……..there is key question as to whether he would be covered by insurance policy of original firm………or of new firm. Although coverage could almost certainly be worked out………..this issue must at least be addressed……..and might even justify additional compensation or reimbursement.
(4) Payment for essential engineering services performed by Patrick is treated as trivial issue……….implied to be unimportant and even unworthy of engineer. Imagine Patrick was still working for original firm and they fail to pay Patrick …….and perhaps other engineer employees……..for whatever reason. According to NSPE Patrick and other engineers are expected to continue working for nothing………which is preposterous.
One wonders if NSPE believes that NSPE…….or any other organization…….should provide membership benefits to anyone who demands benefits, even without payment.
By signing and sealing after leaving the firm he would no longer be protected by the firms error and omissions insurance. Given the situation I would refuse to sign and seal unless compensation was given to document he was still under contract and hence protected under the insurance policy. If that was not possible under the insurance contract his superior should sign and seal the plans
You wouldn’t even have to read the code of ethics to have a bad feeling on this one. The optics are so bad here – it reads like out and out extortion.
“We are concerned by Patrick’s professional attitude concerning the firm’s request that he sign and seal drawings. While we believe Patrick may have legitimately been entitled to a small fee for performing additional professional services performed for his former employer, and as part of his accountability to his new firm, we are struck by Patrick’s refusal to sign and seal the drawings unless paid additional compensation.”
It would have cost his former employer a portion of his salary on the day he signed and sealed. You agree he is entitled to a small fee. What you are “concerned by” or “struck by” is irrelevant.
That fee has a purpose. I think it would be unethical to sign plans that you haven’t been involved with throughout the entire process. Who knows what changes were made to those plans after the Engineer left the organization. The Engineer has an obligation to ensure that anything they stamp is correct to the best of their knowledge. It would take the departed Engineer time to review the plans and ensure that they are still accurate, that nothing has changed in their absence. This takes time and effort. I think it would be unethical of the company to expect a departed Engineer to put time and effort into something without paying them.
If I left on my own for another company, I would feel obligated to seal the drawings whether compensated or not. It would be a different story if I were released as a contract employee or laid off once the work was complete and then called back. I’d be interested in how the latter situation would be treated.
This example is not that simple in real life. I did not read this example as Patrick not signing the drawings unless he got paid. I saw this as a matter of trust and not an issue about payment. As a professional engineer, I would not sign any drawings unless I had ample time to analyze everything that changed since my departure to ensure that my design was still appropriate or I’d want the liberty to change my design to meet my standards of sound engineering design. The money is not the issue as much as assuring technical soundness. This is why I considered the refusal ethical.
The board took critical assumptions about the level of completion and review prior to Patrick’s departure for granted. If the scenario stated those assumptions as fact, i.e. design was complete and not revised, I would have answered “unethical”. How is Patrick to know that the plans were not revised in his absence? I would never sign without my detailed review and that could very well constitute a burden.
Anybody remember the Kansas City Hyatt tragedy in 1981? A “minor” change in the hanger detail….
The scenario was poorly presented.
How long had the project been out of Patrick’s responsible charge? Could changes have been made (perhaps to controversial elements of the project that Patrick did not agree with)? I think that before Patrick sign and seal the documents, he be given the opportunity to thoroughly review them, for which additional compensation be provided.
My thoughts.. The facts indicated virtually completed. If the work was completed, he is obligated to sign. If not, he is required to review what might have changed from when he left to insure all final items added to complete the project meet the necessary requirements, regulations, etc, agree to the technical content and should be compensated for the additional time spent to complete the work. The work should not be given to another engineer to complete since he was involved for a majority of the project and should complete it regardless of who he works for. I felt the virtually completed swayed my decision in my response.
Well, let me remind you of the collapse of the Kansas City Hotel – the work was virtually complete when the engineer of record plan stamped the design. There was just ONE NIGGLING DETAIL – the fasteners had been changed from 60 kip back to 30 kip – A SMALL CHANGE, OF COURSE. So, Patrick is being asked to do a FINAL DESIGN REVIEW pro bono. Your decision would be correct if you properly defined ‘virtually complete’ as in complete except for spelling checks. Otherwise, you are asking for Patrick to sign up to a collapse.
Issues with the finding – The question states he wanted an additional fee, and the board agrees that he is possibly entitled to a “small” fee. The question does not make clear the amount of the fee requested and uses the vague term “virtually” for the level of competition. The correct answer to this question is “need more information”. If the project was sitting on his desk completed and he didn’t sign it prior to leaving then I agree no additional fee should be paid. If he had done a final review of the project and the staff was just fixing his comments when he left, then he should be entitled to be paid for his time to do a quick review to ensure all changes were satisfactorily made but not a significant fee.
When Patrick left Superior he lost control of the documents which could have been changed. This would have required a complete review of the documents and preparation of a secure document for his signed seal. a fee for this would have been ethical. If the fee was far above his normal rate of compensation, then it could have been considered unethical. You did not have sufficient information for that decision.
Very Good Ethics Question; Very suitable in todays environment with employee mobility so common.
Another ambiguous case from your files.
Patrick, before signing and sealing the documents will need to review what has been changed. Although ‘virtually completed’ this implies that changes detrimental to the design could have been made. I expected Patrick would charge a small fee based on the hours to complete this review and sign. How is this not the same as the ethical boards’ review? “While we believe Patrick may have legitimately been entitled to a small fee for performing additional professional services…” I would have the rate arranged and agreed to before signing the plans, if I were Patrick. If an agreement could not be made, then the previous firm can do the review themselves. I would not expect that Patrick is holding out for some kind of King’s ransom, it sounds more like the previous firm is not willing to pay for his services.
As usual we don’t have the reasoning for the targeted professional’s actions or lack thereof. I think I’m going to stop reviewing these examples because I always give a benefit of the doubt to the engineer and end up on the wrong side of the ethical question.
As noted, the event description does not provide all of the details around this story. If Patrick was only refusing to sign the documents so he could personally contribute to his personal wealth; then he is wrong for not fulfilling his professional obligation.
However, if there were changes to the design or documentation that he did not agree with – not signing the documents would be appropriate.
The context lends the reader to believe that the first reason is more of a factor than the second for not signing the documents.
I do believe that a small compensation for additional time to review documents is fair, but not required.
I also find myself in a rare occasion of disagreement with the PDH board. First of all, this should have been addressed and resolved prior to his departure. A pox on both parties for not doing so.
However, let us assume it was unavoidable. Then the engineer needs to 1) notify his new employer of what he will be doing, and get an agreement signed by both companies that the previous company will provide the insurance for the remainder of his work (note that the code of ethics recognizes that despite efforts to the contrary, conflicts of interest arise, but the engineer is required to notify the parties), 2) the engineer should charge only a reasonable fee, however, much of the fee involved for providing a design may not be in the hours worked, but in supervising and taking responsibility for the design, so “reasonable” is certainly up for interpretation, 3) upon completion of the work, the engineer should sign a memo indicating closure of the matter, noting that the signature, stamping and post-departure final work was done on an extended agreement approved by both employers after the date of termination from the first company. It might be wise to obtain agreement signatures from both companies to the closure statement.
Should the engineer wish to essentially provide the work as a professional courtesy to his former employer, I believe a token fee should still be charged because I suspect in some states, unless compensation is provided for goods or services, it might not be considered a bona fide business transaction, and any insurance that the first company might rely upon may be rendered useless for that particular design. Furthermore, there is also the issue of being fair to other engineers engaged in such work in order to make a living. Giving it away absolutely free undercuts those who cannot afford to do so.
Finally, in his own interests, leaving work unsigned requires his employer to have one of the other engineers redo the entire project as far as the leaving engineer’s contribution was concerned. Presumably, these would be without his knowledge or consent. Should a problem later arise with the design, there could be questions as to who was responsible. Although it is unlikely that any legal or ethical case could be made against him, his reputation could be damaged for something he had actually nothing to do with.
As one of the other respondents indicated, “there is a reason for the fee.”
I voted ethical, here is my thoughts: If it’s not signed and sealed, it’s not complete. The correct thing to do would be for Superior Engineering to put another Engineer in charge of the project, have that Engineer review the work to his satisfaction and sign and seal the documents. The previous Engineer does not have any obligation to review any work done since he left, in order for him to be satisfied he could sign and seal.
In general it’s poor form to leave a firm without tying up loose ends on your projects and making sure someone is taking over them.
This also raises questions for me regarding Liability insurance: If the previous engineer did S+S while not employee at Superior, would he be covered by their insurance?
This was a liability issue for Patrick, he was right to not sign.
I have to agree with most of the comments here. Virtually completed is a worthless term in my experience. It is like when proposals are handed to us and they say its a direct copy of such and such job. It almost never ends up being the case. There is almost always significant deviations that must be taken into account. When a project manager says to me a job is virtually complete that could mean anything in past experience to only a couple hours of review to months of work depending on the size of the project. A five year project virtually complete is entirely different from a two month turn key project. Also, I would never take any companies word that they changed nothing. I would never to sign my name to something that I did not review again or been intimately involved with from start to finish with no gaps. Companies pay all the time for designs to be reviewed by outside firms in the case of a missing license and most have additional engineers who can review the design and sign. It is not like he is putting the company at risk of not being able to seal the drawings at all. They may occur additional costs but they would if he had died, been on disability or any other number of scenarios. I don’t think it is unethical for him to want compensation. Now I would agree it was unethical if the engineer purposely failed to sign drawings that were ready to be sealed before leaving, with the intention of making more money after the fact. If you said the drawings were waiting to be sealed at the time of his departure I would definitely question his ethics, but virtually completed is not sufficient to make any such assumption.
Patrick was in the right, based on the information provided. For an engineer to sign and seal documents, it is not simply rubber stamping and push out the door; an individual should take the time, even when “virtually” complete, to make a thorough check to his/her satisfaction, and only then apply the seal. All this takes times, be it 2 hours, 8 hours or several days, depending on what virtually means, and if corrections needed, then to “oversee” those individuals responsible to make the change if he wasn’t doing such, proof such and only then apply seal ready to go – this is time!~ As professionals that is all we can sell. He should be made at a rate mutually agreeable to both parties, not necessarily the rate he was being billed at from former employer.
Requiring him to seal without being paid is no different then rubber stamping someone else’s work
If Engineer Roland was also a P.E., as Principal, wouldn’t/shouldn’t he have knowledge of the project, and by Engineer Patrick leaving be the logical person at Superior to seal/sign? Years ago I was at a company during a downturn. P.E.’s were leaving as they could find new jobs. Existing jobs got transferred to the remaining engineers, but the managing engineer sure didn’t want to take the responsibility on for himself. If Superior still had a P.E., which by regulation would be necessary to still be a P.E. firm, then it was Superior’s job to get one of their own engineers up to speed, even if that meant it was the boss. It was Superior’s client, Supeior’s contract, and Superior’s Liability Insurance.
Pretty scary result with majority believing this to be ethical behavior.
Has the Ethics Board reconsidered in light of these virtually identical dissenting opinions?
I believe the comments from “RE” from October 20, 2020 are a counterpoint to the findings of the ethics panel concerning Engineer Patrick.
If you are hired by a new company/firm as an engineer, it would too violate ethics to be reviewing old work from a previous employer “on your new employer’s clock”. Your new employer might even have grounds to dock your pay or take disciplinary action against you if you are billing hours for your new employer performing work for a previous employer who has nothing to do with your new employer. One can cite the following NSPE Model Ethics Code:
Code I.4: Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall act for each employer or client as
faithful agents or trustees.
which requires an engineer to act faithfully to his/her new employer and not commit fraud with respect to billing hours for work that has nothing to do with your present employer.
RE pointed out with good insight that one would have to contact their new employer up front and notify them of the situation with respect to performing work from a previous employer. If I were a supervisory engineer from the new employer and I were confronted with a newly hired engineer who presented me this situation, I would certainly instruct the newly hired engineer to do this work “on his own time” unless he/she felt that a formal contract could be negotiated with his/her old firm to complete the old work.
Certainly, an engineer who left his old job cannot simply be mailed a set of plans and specs. which he did the bulk of work on (probably did not do all the work him- or her-self though) and simply stamp them. A thorough review and thorough contact with coworkers from his/her old job would be in order – I am sure any professional liability insurance company would insist on this anyway. This could take many hours of work.
The old employer should have insisted the plans and specs. be 100% completed and stamped prior to the engineers departure. Otherwise, a senior engineer should take over the design and if necessary contact the previous engineer who had departed in order to complete a thorough and detailed review and check of all plans and specs. completed by the departed engineer.
Adding to the comments, long after the fact:
The engineer should have told his old company to: “Get Lost.” He no longer worked for them. He no longer had any obligation to them other than, maybe, answering the odd question.
They should have taken the drawings and had another of their engineers review them, maybe change them, and sign off for the company.
There are no ethics questions here. Jus a matter of a dingbat at the old company.
Bob Bunce