Code of Ethics Guidelines - APEGBC

APPENDIX C CODE OF ETHICS GUIDELINES
Engineer A should have given permission even if it would have affected
the work of the firm to some degree. Engineers and geoscientists should
encourage and facilitate professionals and technicians to participate in
continuing education to improve relevant engineering, geoscience and
management skills. The question of making up the time is a matter of
policy for the organization concerned; members should encourage the
employer to provide time off with pay. However, it should be recognized
that such time may often not be billable to client or project and it may be
difficult for the organization to accept this aspect.
Principle 7
7.1 Engineer A was a senior employee of a large corporation. He was
manager of the maintenance division, which oversaw the mechanical
maintenance of heavy plant equipment. He was also one member of six
on the specifications committee, which approved all standards and
specifications for the organization. He did not participate in the
purchasing of equipment, which was handled by the purchasing division.
The president of one of the few manufacturers of this equipment invited
Engineer A and his wife to join him and his wife for a week holiday in
the Bahamas at the manufacturer’s expense. He and his wife went.
Engineer A acted incorrectly. He should not have accepted the paid
vacation. While not directly involved in purchasing, he certainly could
have had some influence in his role as a member of the specifications
committee, which could have given a competitive advantage to the
manufacturer.
Members should be very careful about accepting gifts from anyone. This
is particularly true of members of the larger organizations with large and
formal structures. While a member may at the time have a position that
has no connection with a supplier, contractor, etc., during his or her
subsequent career he or she may be appointed to a position that does
have such a connection. It is best to try to decline all gifts.
7.2 Engineer A was Resident Engineer on a construction project. The
contractor submitted a claim for extra payment that was inflated and
unsupportable. He simply returned the document to the contractor with a
rude expression written across it in large letters.
Engineer A should have treated the contractor with courtesy, regardless
of provocation, and should have carefully reviewed the claim and then
written to the contractor politely denying the claim and pointing out the
reasons why it could not be supported. Such a letter need not be long or
detailed but should cover the main points.
ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND GEOSCIENTISTS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA