Step 1: Contextual Framework Pass (Facts)

Section Content:

Facts:
Engineer A is employed by a large industrial company which engages in substantial work on defense projects.
Engineer A's assigned duties relate to the work of subcontractors, including review of the adequacy and acceptability of the plans for material provided by subcontractors.
In the course of this work Engineer A advised his superiors by memoranda of problems he found with certain submissions of one of the subcontractors, and urged management to reject such work and require the subcontractors to correct the deficiencies he outlined.
Management rejected the comments of Engineer A, particularly his proposal that the work of a particular subcontractor be redesigned because of Engineer A's claim that the subcontractor's submission represented excessive cost and time delays.
After the exchange of further memoranda between Engineer A and his management superiors, and continued disagreement between Engineer A and management on the issues he raised, management placed a critical memorandum in his personnel file, and subsequently placed him on three months' probation, with the further notation that if his job performance did not improve, he would be terminated.
Engineer A has continued to insist that his employer had an obligation to insure that subcontractors deliver equipment according to the specifications, as he interprets same, and thereby save substantial defense expenditures.
He has requested an ethical review and determination of the propriety of his course of action and the degree of ethical responsibility of engineers in such circumstances.