Promoting ethical behaviour
by Bernard McGrath, Inspection Validation Centre

"Kickey! What sort of word is that?" scoffed my daughter as she watched over my shoulder when I was writing last month's article. Coincidentally, I had been thinking the same thing and had been in two minds whether to use it in the text. In my bruised ego state at the times my dad used this word, I automatically assumed he was mocking me. With hindsight, I realise that his use of this childish diminutive of a word was aimed at accentuating the trivial nature of the event I was allowing to upset me and the stupidity of allowing it to do so.

But there are more serious situations when we should get upset and spurred into action. The incorrect and unsafe use of NDT is a particular example. NDT operators are put under many and often conflicting pressures, as described in the PANI 3 report1. It has been my experience that the majority of operators take pride in their work and want to do a good job. I have also heard enough stories of where an operator has resisted external pressure and incentives to take short cuts, to believe that on the whole NDT operators, as individuals, are ethical.

A number of years ago, due to writing this column, I was privy to a letter written by an operator complaining about unethical practices. I didn't hear anything subsequently so I don't know whether action was taken or not. But this raises the question of what support do we provide to operators to assist them in behaving in an ethical way?

Membership of the BINDT is dependent on acceptance of a Code of Conduct, which is printed in the NDT Yearbook, and the Service Inspection Group has a Code of Ethics. Both these documents are now available on the website2. The Code of Conduct requires that members report any violations of the code by another member to the Secretary of BINDT. The SIG Code of Ethics states that rule 6 shall not be taken as prohibiting expression of lodging a complaint of the conduct of a member to a competent body but falls short of requiring them to report malpractice. Both codes stress the need for confidentiality of information acquired in their work. So immediately we have a dichotomy – do we whistle-blow or do we take the easier option and keep the rule on maintaining confidences?  Confidentiality is the cloak which protects the unethical.

What happens if we do make a complaint to BINDT? Is there an agreed process of investigation into the complaint? How are the findings reported? Both codes refer to violations by members, but what if the violation is performed by a non-member? Surely the BINDT as the professional body should have jurisdiction to investigate any complaint which has the potential to bring the profession into disrepute.
 
Companies probably have the largest part to play. Last month, whilst neither condoning the operator's actions nor implying that the company had behaved in any way other than proper, I asked whether the NDT vendor company had been doing anything previous to the incident described. Had the company ever thanked the operator for doing a quality job irrespective of the time taken? Or had he only had complaints about not completing enough welds? Was the operator being unethical in not performing inspections or was he just giving the ethic of producing reports quickly a much higher priority than the ethic of doing a quality job, because that was the priority that he had imbibed from the actions of the client and the NDT company? Did the operator receive feedback on the value of his reports or did he see them just disappear into a filing cabinet? Were the consequences of the vessel failing explained to the operator? And, when the company discovered the imaginary inspections because there had been no access to the welds by scaffolding or cherry picker, did this imply that access for the operator to the welds was not being given sufficient priority? These questions illustrate how a company can influence an operator's behaviour for the better or, just as easily, for the worse. 

Another of my dad's favourite retorts to my many complaints was "life's not fair". If I had ever stayed around long enough after he had said this, he may also have added that "life's not simple". Whilst the onus is placed on the individual to navigate ethical complexity, there is a lot an organisation can do (not just say) to help make life simpler.

1The PANI 3 Report can be downloaded from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr617.htm
2The Codes can be found at:
http://www.bindt.org/Membership/For_Individuals/Code_of_Conduct.html
http://www.bindt.org/Membership/For_Companies/Code_of_Ethics.html

Please note that the views expressed in this column are the author's own personal ramblings for the purpose of encouraging discussion within the NDT Newspaper. They do not represent the views of the IVC, Serco Assurance or the HSE who funded the PANI projects.

Letters can be mailed to The Editor, NDT News, 1 Spencer Parade, Northampton NN1 5AA. Fax: 01604 231489; E-mail: ndtnews@bindt.org or e-mail Bernard McGrath direct at Bernard.McGrath@sercoassurance.com