Feedback on Case Studies 182

Following the Panel discussion the IOSH Council were put into groups with each group provided with an ethical case study and a copy of the proposed Code. A member of the PEC facilitated the groups. A summary of the main issues raised during each group’s feedback are summarised below:

Case Study A

This involved the case of a local newspaper report concerning the arrest and conviction of a health and safety officer for drinking and driving a dumper truck after a hen night. In considering the case members of group A re-visited the previous discussion during the panelled debate on whether a conviction of this nature was a private affair. There was also consideration made as to whether a driving ban and fine was a significant conviction. It was felt that this had brought IOSH into disrepute and therefore warranted some disciplinary action. Expulsion was considered but thought to be too severe. The issue of intent was debated and the contributory effect of alcohol affecting judgement was also considered. This led the group to think about issues that may have led to excessive consumption such as personal problems or stress at work. The group were content to issue a reprimand and felt that there were perhaps grounds for including support to members if it became apparent that there were other contributing factors.

Case study B

This involved a complaint following inappropriate Conduct by a trainer when delivering IOSH accredited training to managers in a social services department. The group identified that some of the derogatory language used may not have been intentional although it was accepted that the result had been to cause offence. This led the group to discuss the meaning of intent as it related to professionalism. The expectation of those attending the course was that certain standards of respect and service would be included in addition to technical competence. The issue of age and geographical origin of the trainer were debated with some indicating that the use of the words ‘dear’ and ‘love’ in certain regions and among certain age groups. There was the inevitable ‘political correctness gone mad’ comment, however this was countered by others who focussed on the ‘offence caused’ argument rather than the freedom to act in accordance to social norms argument. The social norm in question was that of construction worker environments where this type of language may be normalised and even expected whereas in a local authority it would be considered inappropriate and against policy. The debate on this issue was concluded with group members agreeing that the trainer would need further guidance and perhaps training on equality and diversity as part of his CPD plan. In terms of a sanction the group felt that the trainer’s motivations were virtuous even if the outcome was offensive and therefore a caution of sorts with guidance was appropriate. It was noted that a caution was not an option in the proposed or existing IOSH Codes and therefore it would go to a reprimand. The wider context was also discussed with the suggestion of undercover students, so called ‘secret shoppers’ to assess the quality of trainers’ delivery. Interestingly the issues of honesty and secret shopper were not recognised.

Case Study C

This involved an issue of dishonesty where a graduate member claimed to be a Chartered member on a CV to get a job. The group felt this was dishonesty and a clear breach under that Code point. Additionally it was also felt that there had been a misrepresentation of the facts for financial gain, which was seen as an issue of integrity. The group discussed the likelihood of legal action as a case of fraud and the implication for the profession had it been a regulated profession such as the financial services industry. Although the group felt this was serious they did not feel that IOSH had been brought into disrepute. As such the sanction agreed by the group was a

reprimand with guidance and CPD, although it was acknowledged that compulsory CPD was not an option in the current disciplinary procedures. It was widely felt that the recruiting company also took some responsibility for not correctly vetting their candidates and therefore should also receive a letter from the Committee. The PEC pointed out that membership checks are easy to do with a simple phone call to the membership department. The group generally agreed that this type of misrepresentation was probably common especially with consultants and demonstrated a real need for a widely communicated Code to improve members’ ethical practice.

Case Study D

The group felt that this was a unique case. The member was in the middle of a messy divorce and over worked. The first consideration of the group was pastoral in considering what support he had during this time. The group were agreed that whatever the reason there was a breach of Code points relating to respect. In addition it was considered important that his CPD record is reviewed to see if there had been a breach under competence relating to CPD. The group (s) considered sanctions hard to determine under these circumstances and felt they needed further guidance in respect of what is required towards the client. The group wanted an option relating to compulsory CPD and also felt that a reprimand was probably appropriate. At this stage the group revisited the issue of support from IOSH to its members and felt that the profession should not only be about punishing members but should also offer support and further education or CPD as required by such cases.

Case Study E

The case involved comments made by a consultant to a client that were mistakenly forwarded by email, advising that they misrepresent facts to a contractor-vetting organisation. This case divided the group in that some felt that all aspects of the IOSH Code had been potentially breached, whilst others were unsure as to whether it was a matter of IOSH to deal with. This was discussed and it was agreed that as an allegation had been made it should be considered by IOSH. The issues of competence, integrity and service were all considered. There was a consensus that there was no case to answer although guidance should be given to the consultant.

Not everyone agreed with some considering this behaviour by the consultant extremely serious.

7.3.9 Discussion on the Case Study Exercise  

The case study exercise was a useful way to engage IOSH Council members in the new IOSH Code and its application to the real world. It was interesting observing how the majority of members firstly reflected on their own experience and secondly referred to the Code when making decisions. There was frequent re-examination of the IOSH Code to substantiate certain points made. Everyone agreed that it was difficult to interpret the IOSH Code without further guidance. Concern was also expressed about the tone of IOSH Code and it was widely agreed that the foreword should be improved to include a call to ethical practice and some indications as to IOSH support mechanisms as well as expectations. There was some discussion about the levels of compulsion in the IOSH Code. There was a suggestion that ‘shall’ was a hash phrase and could be replaced with ‘should’. There was disagreement about this with many on the IOSH Council concerned about watering down the IOSH Code citing the case study example outcomes as examples of where the IOSH Code needed to be clear and concise with a high level of compulsion. The brevity of the IOSH Code was seen as a good thing in removing ambiguity however there was agreement that it needed real world guidance to aid interpretation again citing their recent experience of handling the case studies as evidence of this.

There was a distinct move away from the preoccupation with legal issues evident during the panel discussion to considerations of ethical practice raised in the case studies. This transformation was put to good use when the IOSH president suggested that IOSH Council members have the opportunity to comment on further amendments and add to guidance, this was noted in the Council minutes:

Following a discussion, JH proposed that the Professional Ethics Committee (PEC) refine the draft Code and produce the necessary guidance, taking into consideration the points raised by Council, by 31 October 2010. The revised Code to be emailed to Council and comments returned by 30 November 2010 and then sent to IOSH’s lawyers over the Christmas period; the Publishing