Answer all of the questions that follow the case study as clearly and thoughtfully as possible.

Your analysis will follow the RIPA method of ethical case study analysis:

1. Recognize the Ethical Dilemma: a problem where one value must be chosen over another.
2. Identify and Isolate the Facts: pull all vital information out of the story in order to focus on what is important.
3. Propose and Evaluate Solutions: come up with as many solutions as possible and evaluate the consequences of each.
4. Act, Test, Reflect on the Outcome: decide on a solution, test it, and think about whether it was the best solution.

Case Study

Catherine is a new hire at a company that produces LCD displays for large venues, such as shopping malls. Part of her job requires her to troubleshoot malfunctioning displays.

One day, a shopping mall reported that two display units out of twelve had stopped working from their installation three months prior. The customer also noted serial and revision numbers on the two units were different from the rest of the units.

At the job site, Catherine inspected the displays and realized her company had sold units that were from a bad batch (i.e. group of displays that did not have over 50% yield during manufacturing). Catherine wanted to tell the site why the units failed, but recognized that if she disclosed this information, the site would be eligible to receive replacement displays at no additional cost. On the other hand, if she blamed the failing units on a weaker cause, such as improper installation, her company would be able to charge the site for replacement units.

Catherine knew her manager would want her to choose the option that would minimize the company's losses; however, she wanted to be honest with the site as they were one of the company's best customers.

What should Catherine do?

Recognize the Ethical Dilemma: (20 marks)

In your own words, briefly explain why this case presents an ethical dilemma. Be sure to clearly show which values are in conflict.

Marvin's boss has asked him to modify the data on the level of pollution in the water plant's discharge. This would require Marvin to lie. Honesty is an important value in our ethical system. Our society accepts some degree of dishonesty, provided no one, and no living things, are hurt. In this case, Marvin's dishonesty is more serious in that some wildlife/fish would likely be killed.

Marvin has been asked to do this because he's been told that his company can't afford the repairs that would stop the pollution. His supervisor has told him that there could be layoffs if the company has to do the repairs. Marvin is loyal to his company and his colleagues and doesn't want to do anything to hurt them.

Marvin is also employed by the company and values his job. It's implied that he could be one of the employees who might be laid off.

The water discharge from the plant could also end up hurting the tourist industry, which would harm other people's livelihood. Marvin doesn't want to cause economic problems for other people.

Conclusion:

This situation is an ethical dilemma for Marvin because if he agrees to falsify the data, he will be engaging in dishonest behaviour. He will also be harming the environment.

However, if he refuses to comply with his supervisor's request, he will be disloyal to his employer. If the plant has to fix the problem, jobs could be lost, including his.

Either way, Marvin's decision will require him to act against one of his own ethical values.

Identify and Isolate the Facts (20 marks):

Present all details from the case that must be considered in order to solve the ethical dilemma. Exclude irrelevant information. Be sure to include all possible stakeholders (everyone who could be affected by your solution to the ethical dilemma).

-The water discharge from the plant slightly exceeds legal limitations.

-Marvin's supervisor asks him to modify the data to hide these results.

-The fix for the problem will cost $200,000. Jobs "might" be lost; the company might fall behind its competitors; the plant's "reputation might suffer if the negative report comes out."

-The pollution will not harm people but will affect wildlife: a number of fish will die.

-Tourism might suffer if word of pollution gets out.

Propose and Evaluate all possible solutions (20 m

1. Make a list of all possible solutions, good and bad.

A) Marvin agrees to falsify the data

B) Marvin goes over his manager's head to bring matter to senior management, or someone higher up than Marvin

C) Marvin could refuse to falsify the data

D) He could report the manager's behaviour to the department of natural resources (whistleblow)

E) Marvin could investigate to see if there's another solution to the $200, 000 fix.

F) Marvin could try to talk it over with the manager and express his concerns

1. Evaluate each solution in terms of what the result could be:

1. If Marvin agrees to falsify the data, no one notices, but some fish die. The falsified data could be discovered, and Marvin would suffer the consequences, which could include loss of employment, sanctions from a professional body (OACETT), he and the company could be fined.
2. Senior management could agree with Marvin. They tell him to listen to his manager. Marvin's relationship with the manager could suffer and his work life could become miserable.
3. If Marvin refuses to falsify the data, the company would likely be fined. The company could be ordered to make the repairs. The company is put under the ministry of natural resources microscope.
4. If Marvin whistleblows, he will lose his job, he might be blacklisted, etc...
5. Same as B)
6. Manager doesn't agree and repeats his request. Manager agrees, and they all have to live with whatever the ministry of natural resources does.

Act, Test, Reflect (20 marks):

Make a list of your choice of solutions, from best to worst. For the best solution, include a second best choice, if your case warrants it.

I believe the best solution would be F) Marvin tries to reason with his manager.

If the manager refuses to change his mind, then Marvin should bring his concerns to senior management. If senior management insists that Marvin falsify the report, Marvin could again refuse. There might be repercussions for Marvin, but he will have done the right thing.

Identify the OACETT Code of Ethics clauses that may apply, and briefly explain why you believe each clause applies. (20 marks)

The following items from the OACETT code of ethics would apply to this case study:

(a) hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public, the protection of the environment and the promotion of health and safety within the workplace;

If Marvin falsifies the report, he will be contributing to the endangerment of the environment.

(d) act with integrity towards clients or employers, maintain confidentiality and avoid a conflict of interest but, where such conflict arises, fully disclose the circumstances without delay to the employer or client;

If Marvin falsifies the report, he will not be acting with integrity.

(h) present clearly to employers and clients the possible consequences if professional decisions or judgements are overruled or disregarded;

Marvin should explain to his employer the possible consequences of falsifying the report.

(i) report to the appropriate agencies any hazardous, illegal or unethical professional decisions or practices by fellow members or others;

Marvin would be required to report his manager's request to senior management, or the ministry of natural resources.

Identify the OACETT Rules of Professional Practice that could be applied to this case. Explain why you believe each would apply. (20 marks)

If Martin falsifies the report, he will be breaking the following rule of professional practice:

3.1 negligence, an act or omission in the carrying out of the work of a practitioner that constitutes a failure to maintain the standards that a reasonable and prudent practitioner would maintain in the circumstances;

If Martin falsifies the report, he will not have maintained the standards of a reasonable and prudent practitioner. OACETT standards call for members to act with integrity and to protect the natural environment.

[note: there are other rules broken in this case study; list and briefly explain all that apply]