Summary

From the Case I and II, the situation of the plant is at risk because of their health and safety measures. The head
engineer come up with the idea of rectifying issues just like the way they did to Canadian Plant but eventually the
Company management refuse to use this as their solution to their problem because of some reasons. The reasons
why they reject the plan is it because the company still have obligation to check or rectify the plants issue. The
feasibility of the plan is not enough to solve the problem and the plant should be associated with the countrys law
and regulations not the companys policies and decisions.

Salient Points
The company should keep the same rule even if it is in foreign country
The Company management should listen to the workers word because even if they are so low ranking
person they know more about specific parts in the plant more that the people in higher positions.
The Company should always have a safety and healthy equipment in case of emergency

Analysis
The Company in Canada is at risk so also the foreign plant
The head engineer is certain that the same problems that have been identified in Case Studies I and II in
the Canadian plant also exists in the foreign plant
The problem is associated with the countrys laws and regulations, and not the companys policies or
decisions.
Not following rules can give problems and risks.

Recommendations
The head engineer shall maintain her pride for her profession
The foreign plant still must use the Companys policies or decisions
Questions:

a) As a licensed engineer in a Canadian province, the head engineer is obliged to adhere to the code of ethics for
engineers in her province. Mindful of this obligation, what actions should she take if any regarding the companies
refusal to fix the safety problems in the foreign plant?

- The head engineer must still follow the code of ethics, but if the company refuses to fix the safety problems in the
foreign plant she needs to stop taking action in the problem because she may lost her job. But if she did not take
action the workers on the foreign plant may be at risk every day because of poor management of the company.
The head engineer must petition for a movement so that they can take actions on the foreign safety issues.

b) Select a province or territory in Canada. What are the relevant clauses in the engineering code of ethics of that
province or territory that provide guidance on how the head engineer should deal with the dilemma she faces?

- Head and Professional Engineering in Canada manages issues and mistakes with agreement of their engineering
code of ethics of their country with legitimate preparing and direction in dealing with some serious and risky
circumstances.

c) Are all of the reasons cited by the company for not fixing the safety problems in the foreign plant valid? For
instance, can you give a scenario in which doing the required work might be economic?

- Reasons referred to by the company of the plant for not fixing the safety issues in foreign plant are invalid. In spite
of the fact that laws and directions of their country don't generally require foreign countries issues to be settled,
they should be likewise worried that foreign countries issues may likewise happen whenever in the organizations.

References:

http://www.peo.on.ca/index.php?ci_id=1815&

Health and Safety and Engineering Design

 CASE STUDY NO. 3

-------------

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements in
NME 417 1ME: Safety Engineering

-------------

Presented to the
College of Engineering
University of the East - Caloocan

-------------

Cruz, Arvin Jansen O.

15.August. 2017